Reason Roundup

Becoming the Libs to Own the Libertarians: Tucker Carlson Praises Elizabeth Warren

Plus: Ashton Kutcher serves up "sex trafficking"-enabled surveillance, NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio goes after soft serve, and more...

|

Just when you think 2019 politics can't get any zanier… GOP huckster Tucker Carlson praised Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren's economic plans during the opening segment of his Fox News show last night.

After chiding Republican policymakers for not embracing "economic nationalism," Carlson quoted Warren sounding off on American companies for not being sufficiently patriotic.

Warren's comments were couched in language Republicans love: gratitude "for the opportunities America" provides, condemnation of those with "no loyalty or allegiance" to the country, lament of U.S. companies opening locations in Mexico and China. But they were also packed with evergreen left malcontent—casting blame on "free market principles" because the corporations that "control our economy" overvalue "the short-term interests of their shareholders,"

Carlson—an avid free-markets kind of guy until it was no longer what Fox producers and GOP leaders seemed to want—opined that Warren's pro-regulation rant was "just pure old-fashioned economics" and that many of her policy prescriptions "make obvious sense."

"She sounds like Donald Trump at his best," Carlson concluded.

The Washington Post heralds this as another sign of "the inchoate political realignment that has made it unclear to which party causes from free trade to privacy protection belong."

Carlson—who started the Daily Caller last decade with a lofty, libertarian-conservative fusionist agenda and went on to cheerlead the Tea Party movement—also used last night's opening monologue for a bizarre conspiracy theory mashup about limited government supporters. He complained that Washington is overrun with "libertarian zealot[s]" who are "controlled by the banks" and always "yammering on about entrepreneurship." Entrepreneurship—the horror!

The rest of Carlson's rant pretty much posited that America is waiting for someone who will do magical socialist things without calling them socialism, and that this could be Trump if conservatives and libertarians weren't playing with all the partial-birth abortions performed on transgender immigrant capitalists at our weed orgies, or something like that. You can read the full thing here (courtesy of the Washington Examiner's Joe Gabriel Simons).

Like many Republicans in the Trump era, Carlson has been trending away from limited-government rhetoric for a while, using his show to "yammer on" about why tariffs are good while still fearmongering about liberals and "socialists" (a category very broadly defined in the Fox world). But drape that "socialism" in a flag, and you just might win him over.


FREE MINDS

"Sex trafficking"-enabled surveillance. Read this great engadget takedown of Ashton's Kutcher's asinine "anti-trafficking" group, Thorn, which really just serves as a celebrity front for an online surveillance tool aimed at sex workers, used by law enforcement, and funded by the the likes of major tech companies and the Saudi-endowed McCain Institute.

In recent years, many tech companies have started taking the group seriously. "Silicon Valley's biggest companies have partnered with a single organization to fight sex trafficking—one that maintains a data collection pipeline, is partnered with Palantir, and helps law enforcement profile and track sex workers without their consent," writes Viola Blue.

Major websites like Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat and others are working with a nonprofit called Thorn ("digital defenders of children") and, perhaps predictably, its methods are dubious.

Thorn offers internet companies its content moderation tool "Safer," and for law enforcement, its separate data-mining and user-profiling tool "Spotlight." Both use data sources and AI to automate policing of sex content. Of Thorn's 31 nonprofit partners, 27 target adults and vow to abolish consensual sex work under the banner of saving children from sex trafficking.

More here.


FREE MARKETS

New Yorkers may see less ice cream this summer. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and his administration are bragging about "Operation Meltdown," in which brave city authorities targeted ice cream truck owners who had unpaid traffic tickets. The city insists, of course, that it was for the children.

"We all know from common experience that ice cream trucks are magnets for children," and "in order to protect this particularly vulnerable category of pedestrians, our traffic laws must be strictly enforced," said city lawyer Zachary W. Carter.


QUICK HITS

  • "A prison sentence is not a license for gov torture and human rights violations. That's what solitary confinement is," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) tweeted Wednesday, adding that folks in solitary—including former Trump lawyer Paul Manafort—should be released.
  • Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, says he'll veto all four anti-abortion bills that the state legislature is sending his way.
  • New York's legislature just passed a measure to make declawing cats illegal.
  • David French details a Second Amendment win in Pennsylvania.
  • The U.K. newspaper The Guardian has announced that it has "updated its style guide more accurately to reflect abortion bans spreading across the United States." Now:

Instead of using "fetal heartbeat bills", as the laws are often called by anti-abortion campaigners, the Guardian will make "six-week abortion ban" the preferred term for the laws, unless quoting someone.

 

Advertisement

NEXT: Why the Arkansas Law Aimed at Boycotts of Israel Is Generally Constitutional

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. …in order to protect this particularly vulnerable category of pedestrians, our traffic laws must be strictly enforced…

    In order to protect this particularly vulnerable budget of bureaucracy…

    1. Oops.

      Hello.

    2. In order to protect this particularly vulnerable budget of bureaucracy…

      That’s the real meltdown they’re worried about, amirite people?

    3. “It’s for the children” wins every argument.

    4. So was Michael Moynihan driving an ice cream truck when he was arrested? Vice must be hurting more then I thought.

      http://wethefifth.com/

  2. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D–N.Y.) has a plan for national marijuana legalization.

    Descheduling? Could it really be as simple as that?

    1. Are you nuts? We need that sweet, sweet tax revenue!

      1. Tax it the same as alcohol and tobacco? We can’t fund the Green New Deal with that!

        p.s. And California wonders why it still has an illegal black market in marijuana. Sigh.

    2. Of course there will be common sense regulations and taxes.

      1. And a list of cronies who get a license to grow, distribute and sell.

        1. And a continued thriving black market… so all the same “problems” as today. Hooray government!

          1. Do you seriously believe the black market for alcohol today is anything like the black market for alcohol during Prohibition? If not, then why would you assume marijuana legalization won’t have similar positive effects in terms of decreasing violence, police searches, etc.

      2. But where there be government controls on pistol grips and other scary looking features of Joints-of-War?

      3. “Common sense” regulations and taxes written/imposed by people who wouldn’t recognize real common sense if it bit them in the ass.

    3. Fucker politicians don’t know how to end an unjust law without making more regulations about how it’s going to end, etc etc

      1. 387 new pages of regulation does not deregulate!

  3. Hello.

  4. Is the GOP really going to turn away people fleeing socialism? Really?

    Yes, because what conservative wants his country flooded with people who understand and can explain the dangers of socialism?

    1. Heh. No mention of youtube’s shutting down innocent channels in order to please some retard left-wing hack.

      Those conservative snowflakes, amirite?

      I’m also not understanding this mocking of conservatives who ‘fear monger’ against democratic socialists and socialism.

      As far as I’m concerned, we don’t attack and mock it enough.

      1. No mention of youtube’s shutting down innocent channels in order to please some retard left-wing hack.
        Except for the whole article on it from yesterday,

      2. > I’m also not understanding this mocking of conservatives who ‘fear monger’ against democratic socialists and socialism.

        Railing against socialism in all forms is a good thing. But modern US conservatives are irrationally afraid of foreigners. They don’t want to be called bigoted though, so they point to their country of origin being somehow “socialist” as an excuse to prevent workers and entrepreneurs from entering our country. But only if that country of origin has brown skinned people. Denmark is far more “socialist” than Mexico, yet we issue visas to Danes without blinking. There’s no movement to round up all the Danes the South Dakota and deport them.

        Shit and hellfire, Denmark is actually more capitalist then the US at this point. High taxes to be sure, but we’re far more socialist. US conservatives thump their fists about no new taxes at the same time they whine we need more tariffs, and have done nothing in fifty years to cut back on spending, and even the faintest hint that socialist Medicare might get reformed sends them into apoplectic fits.

        You measure socialism not by taxation, but by the level of government interference into the day to day lives of the people. And taxation is just one tiny part of that. We are far more socialist than the socialist Scandinavians.

        1. This comment is full of an incredible amount of faulty logic and poor assumptions

        2. You misspelled furriners.

          Get your bigoted misrepresentations right.

    2. My favorite is the abortion factor in this equation. The left wants all these Catholics in from countries that ban abortion and the right wants to keep them all out.

      1. It will be interesting if the Democrats ever lose their grip on the minority vote. Black people tend to be pretty socially conservative and anti-abortion as well. I really think that the Republicans could gain a lot of votes if they made a more concerted effort to appeal to blacks and latinos.

      2. The Left gets theirs too. When California first tried to legalize gay marriage, the referendum lost because most Latinos and Blacks voted against it. The affluent white progressives in San Fransisco were dumbfounded. Still tried to blame it on the red counties.

        p.s. I got nothing against gay marriage, so long as no one forces me into one. Just pointing out that the various Democratic Party factions have conflicting ideas. And taking one of their major base constituencies for granted can be dangerous. Blacks and Latinos won’t vote for Republicans for many decades to come, but they sure as hell can get disgusted with the Democrats and just stay home on election day.

        1. Why would anyone force you into a gay marriage?

  5. “Words no longer have meaning. “Libertarian” apparently no longer means what I thought it meant.”

    Been reading the Reason comments section I see.

    1. Up until yesterday it was cool for conservatives to call themselves libertarians. It seems their new marching orders are to own the libertarians. I suppose they’ve grown tired of “owning” the lib(eral)s.

      1. “it was cool for conservatives to call themselves libertarians”

        Hey, now that marijuana is gaining widespread social acceptance, “Republicans who smoke pot” are just… well, Republicans.

      2. Because no one but you ever thinks for themselves. Everyone else has marching orders. You are such a putz.

        No Libertarians are not conservatives. Libertarians have more in common with leftists than they do with conservatives in that Libertarians are Utopian. The difference is that leftists think man can be perfected by government and Libertarians think man can be perfected by being left alone. The principles of both ideologies are the same. They just differ in the details.

        1. I’ve never claimed to be a libertarian… or a republican, or democrat, or conservative, or……

          However, I don’t think libertarian philosophy is concerned with perfecting man at all. The being left alone part seems spot on though.

          1. It doesn’t have to be concered with perfecting man. If you look at many Libertarians’ utter refusal to face the realities of things like immigration and complete belief that anything that happens because of the “market” is defacto fair and just, they are effectively saying man can be perfected by being left alone, since all results that come from that are necessarily fair and just.

            1. I guess I’ve never come across someone who argued that all market results are fair and just. Even if they did, I don’t understand the conclusion that an underlying goal would exist to perfect man.

              Perfecting man seems to be an authoritarian and collectivist aim… both of which, I gather, are anathema to the tenets of libertarianism.

            2. To be fair John, Libertarians are for Rule of Law so immigration laws are fine.

              The open border people who don’t want any law either are Anarchists hiding as LINOs.

              1. Fair point. I am speaking more of the wokeltarians.

                1. 🙂

              2. “The open border people who don’t want any law either are Anarchists hiding as LINOs.”

                Which is better than Constitutionalists hiding as Libertarians?

                1. Poor eric the troll.

                  1. You are a fucking idiot, LC!
                    You call a libertarian defending libertarian principles on a libertarian website a troll while you are clearly a Republican/Progressive/Collectivist trolling a libertarian website.

                    Go back to masterbating to pictures of Trump and Bolton, interloper.

                    1. Perhaps you’d like to explain why Constitutionalists can’t be considered libertarians?

        2. Libertarians think man can be perfected by being left alone.

          You continue to show that you really don’t understand libertarians at all. The idea of perfection doesn’t play into it at all for us.

          Just. freaking. leave. people. alone. It’s not that difficult of a concept to grasp.

          1. Yes it does. You just don’t understand or are not honest enough to admit the full implications of your beliefs. The next time you are lauding the magic dirt theory of immigration where culture doesn’t matter and economics rules all, think a little harder. That is another thing you share with leftists; you think economics explains all human behavior without any regard to culture or human nature. People are supposed to magically change if only they are put in a free market. Their culture and desire for things other than more cheap shit is just a false consciousness.

            1. People are supposed to magically change if only they are put in a free market.

              Did you read my previous response? Your mistake here is that you think people have to change and project that to your assumptions about what libertarians believe. Let people be. No, I really mean that. Don’t require them to conform, to change, to perfect themselves or anyone else. Just let them be.

              1. Don’t require them to conform, to change, to perfect themselves or anyone else. Just let them be.

                And when you let them be they will magically value freedom and do the same to you. That is the unstated assumption of your statement. The idea that people can have their own views and motivations and not care if you let them be and will seek to enforce their will on you never occurs to you. You honestly believe that if we let say the entire country of Somalia into the country those people will do nothing to make the country more to their liking and will leave you alone if you just let them be.

                It is mind boggling how naive that is. It is every bit as Utopian and insane as anything ever said by a Marxist.

                1. And when you let them be they will magically value freedom and do the same to you.

                  Some will, but some won’t. Like all people everywhere.

                  we let say the entire country of Somalia into the country those people will do nothing to make the country more to their liking and will leave you alone if you just let them be.

                  Some will, and some won’t. Like all people everywhere.

                  Take for example, my neighbor. He is a fairly devout Southern Baptist. I am sure he disapproves of my wicked and sinful lifestyle. But the great thing is, he doesn’t have the power to force me to change my ways. That’s the ideal here. Who cares what the desires of Somalis or Southern Baptists are, if they don’t have the power to force their desires onto others against their will?

                  1. Some will, but some won’t. Like all people everywhere.

                    No, not like all people everywhere. Like Somalians everywhere. People and cultures are different. It is so funny. You are so stupid you just restated my point without even knowing it. You think a sample of a thousand Somalies will have the same distribution of views that a sample of a thousand Germans or Americans or Swedes. They won’t. You admit to individual differences but completely fail to comprehend cultural differences and differences in the aggregate.

                    And your story about your neighbor is so laugable it is hard to know where to begin. He may not have power to enforce his will on you now but put enough hard core baptists in this country and he sure as hell will. Again, you assume that there is nothing beyond the individual. It is just amazing that anyone could believe this nonsense.

                  2. Maybe I’m missing something here…in the US people most definitely have the power to force their desires onto others. I’m not Southern Baptist but in my state I cannot buy alcohol on Christmas Day. If you can think of a good, non-religious reason that citizens can’t buy or sell beer on December 25th, I’d like to hear it.

                    1. You shouldn’t be able to buy alcohol during Yule because by definition Yule continues until you’re out of ale. This was a standardization by Hákon in the mid-tenth century so that we could all coordinate our celebrations.

                      Modern societies have shifted the date of celebrations of the jólfaðr so that we can coordinate the timing with the southerners from Italy, and trick them into worshipping the Allfather rather than their god.

                2. See my (lengthy) response below

              2. Did you read my previous response?

                Of course he didn’t. He’s too busy spouting virtue signals to his tribe.

                1. Jeff can you please go to the kids table and let the adults talk just this once? You literally have nothing to add to this coversation. It went straight over your head. No amount of “yeah team” is going to hide that fact. Just run along.

          2. +1

            Exactly. John is projecting Fox news hit-piece editorials onto libertarians.

            For a guy who reads and posts here for years, it’s surprising how wrong he is about libertarians. Amazing really.

            1. Yes Jeff it is all from Fox News. You called it. All of my thoughts come from a TV show I don’t watch. God you are a medacious moron. You really are.

              1. That’s not me you’re responding to.

                1. My apologies. Really. You didn’t say that.

            2. One’s views on libertarians will depend upon the lens with which they are looking. To a classical liberal, libertarians can seem philosophical and utopian. To a conservative, they can seem libertine or anarchistic. And to a progressive, they can seem calloused and cruel.

              1. What’s the safe word for a utopian cruel libertine?

          3. “for us”

            Why are you presuming to speak for anyone but yourself?

        3. Actually, libertarians are the only party that does not preach hope for a Utopia. Any good libertarian knows that sometimes people’s circumstances are bad, the economy can have ups and downs, bad choices can have bad consequences etc. even in a fully libertarian society. The difference is that we don’t believe in things like adding three new pieces of Housing Market Double Bubble and then making the bubble dangerously big so in the end there is much more damage done.

          1. You misunderstand what I mean by “Utopia”. When I say Utopia I mean an ideal that must be pursued regardless of the consiquences. The fact that the Libertarian Utopia has misfortune doesn’t make it any less of an ideal and a Utopia in that sense than Marxist Utopia. Libertarians see the “free market” as an ideal whose results are the only morally legitimate results available. It is like a giant machine that produces by definition the best result. That is very Utopian even if the “utopia” in question is not materially perfect.

            1. Libertarians see the “free market” as an ideal whose results are the only morally legitimate results available.

              This is correct. Allowing the free market (which is just a buzz word for individuals who are uncoerced by force) to generate results is the only morally legitimate result to libertarians, because to do otherwise is a violation of the NAP by definition. Any other outcome requires the use of government force. Whether that outcome is conservative in nature (pressure on social conformity) or leftist in nature (pressure on economic conformity) they ultimately require government force because anything else is by definition a free market solution.

              True libertarians, in my opinion, value the freedom itself and not as a means to an end that we have in mind. I think that’s where we always seem to talk past each other. In an ideal government that can’t use force to impose its way other than to protect natural, negative rights of individuals, the political motivation of the subjects is irrelevant. Even if you imported Marxists into such a society there are no means by which they can impose their will. This is the government that our Constitution was supposed to ensure for us, and would be my “Utopian” government of choice. But as Lysander Spooner pointed out so long ago it failed either to deliver that, or to protect it. And we continue to see that today, primarily through a court system that interprets the Constitution politically.

              In the absence of such a Utopia, we can only hope to gain as much individual liberty through incrementalism as possible. But that doesn’t mean we should reject incrementalism because it’s not perfection.

              1. Well said.
                Libertarianism doesn’t tell you how society should be ordered. It just tells you what the limits of government power should be. It really can’t be utopian because it has no perfect end that it aims for.

              2. +1

                The idea here is liberty for its own sake. Often, the exercise of liberty will produce positive results. But sometimes, it does not. However, with liberty, people will have the resources and tools that they need to solve any problems that arise from the exercise of liberty, in the absence of coercion.

                1. Libertarians are just people who value individual freedom more highly than other things. And conservatives value tradition and social order (or whatever you want to call it) over other things and progressives value material equality. I like libertarianism the best out of those as a political philosophy because it doesn’t presume that there is a best outcome. Because different people value different things.

        4. Libertarians think man can be perfected by being left alone

          Maybe some do, but I don’t think that’s really what most libertarians think.
          Libertarians are often ideologues who let the perfect be the enemy of the good. But that’s not quite the same thing as Utopian.

      3. When was it ever cool for conservatives to call themselves libertarians?

        Can you give any examples?

    2. LOLOL

    3. There are libertarians in the Reason comment section?

  6. “Venezuelans make up about a third of the people seeking asylum in the U.S.”

    Let. Them. All. In.

    #AbolishICE
    #NoBanNoWall
    #OpenBorders
    #ImmigrationAboveAll

    1. Send them all back. Deniers of the achievements of socialism aren’t welcome. Go back to your utopia!

      #FeelTheBern

    2. Let any of them that want in, to come in. But get rid of welfare at the same time. Not that immigrants get welfare. They don’t. Get rid of the welfare to shut the conservatives up.

      I’ve got zero problems with anyone who works for a living, who is productive, and who adds value to the world. Doesn’t matter if they’re a fat CEO or a dirt digging farm worker.

      Get them immunized and do a background check before you let them in, of course. I’m not an anarchist. But Open Borders does NOT mean anarchy. I’m fine with sensible immigration rules. But building a fucking wall and whining about kulturewar is stupid. Don’t say you’re only against illegal immigration when you do everything possible to shut down LEGAL immigration.

  7. A prison sentence is not a license for gov torture and human rights violations. That’s what solitary confinement is…

    We’ll see if AOC still holds that true when someone tells her some of these people are in prison for ignoring green initiatives or gun control measures or other central planning efforts.

    1. Are you fear mongering against democratic socialists again?

      Principals over principles dude.

      /places hands on hips nodding head disapprovingly.

      1. I would be thrilled if their hearts bled for all the people found on the wrong side of a state agent’s gun for rejecting government dictates.

    2. Wait until she figures out that it uses less energy to house all the inmates in one room

      1. And that’s it’s even less energy to put them on train cars out to camps…… oh.

  8. California Is The Future The Liberal Elite Wants For You
    California has morphed from paradise into a garbage state run by garbage people for their own garbage benefit and amusement. The “garbage” part is literal – once the Sierra Nevada mountains symbolized the state; now, towering heaps of trash and human waste do. Welcome to what the Democrats want for all of America. Just watch your step. Literally.

    If it were not for the climate, something the liberals in charge of my state have nothing to do with as much as they think they do, it would likely be a nearly empty desert once again. But the sun shines, the beach beckons and the palm trees sway over a population of morons who keep electing proggy fascists to run the place. Which they are doing, right into the ground.

    1. +100

  9. New York’s legislature just passed a measure to make declawing cats illegal.

    Albany has a rat problem, too?

    1. Think about all the poor single women that now have to drive across state lines just to get a simple, necessary medical procedure.

  10. What’s with the David French fetish?

    I personally prefer The New Criterion for conservative eloquence.

    1. David French shows us all how to take it up the butt from Dems with dignity. He doesn’t make a scene about it, like Orange Hitler does.

      1. Sounds like it.

        Cocktail alliances.

      2. French and the other self-appointed guardians of civility, then, should do us all a favor and drop the civic virtue act. They’re not disinterested guardians of our public institutions; they are actors, working in an industry that rewards them for dressing up in Roman Republican drag and reciting Cicero for the yokels. This is why Bill Kristol, another of the Never Trumpers, could raise money for his vanity website, The Bulwark, and why he could expect his new creation be lauded on CNN as “a conservative site unafraid to take on Trump,” even as the site was staffed by leftist millennials and dutifully followed progressive propaganda lines. Like anyone whose living depends on keeping on the right side of a leftist industry, they understood that there’s only so much you can say if you care about cashing a paycheck—especially when the president and leader of your own party won’t take your phone calls.

        https://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/285822/why-jews-should-pay-attention-to-the-recent-debate-rocking-american-conservatism

        1. Thus ENB’s new found respect for “traditional” conservative French.

          1. She’s just mad the right is finally cracking down on baby killing. How else those hookers gonna turn tricks?

    2. I thought they just liked his defense of free speech and classical liberalism. I don’t know much about French, but he seems to have some good things to say sometimes.

  11. Whenever I wake up in the middle of the night literally shaking at the realization that Drumpf is still President, I calm myself with the fact that Pelosi is Speaker of the House.

    Pelosi Tells Democrats She Wants Trump in Prison, Politico Says

    #TrumpRussia
    #LibertariansForGettingToughWithRussia
    #LibertariansForPelosi
    #Impeach

  12. To put it briefly, the Never Trump argument is that they should be greatly approved of, while Donald Trump should rightly be scorned, because—while they agree with Trump on most things, politically—they are devoted to virtue, while Trump is uniquely despicable. The proofs of Trump’s singular loathsomeness are many, but if you strip him of all the vices he shares with others who had recently held positions of power—a deeply problematic attitude towards women (see under: Clinton, William Jefferson), shady business dealings (see under: Clinton, Hillary Rodham), a problematic attitude towards the free press (see under: Obama, Barack)—you remain with one ur-narrative, the terrifying folk tale that casts Trump as a nefarious troll dispatched by his paymasters in the Kremlin to set American democracy ablaze.

    “The Never Trumpers, of course, aren’t the first Americans to hide cold careerism behind a wall of virtue-signaling. It’s why so many in the professional punditry went the way of Never Trump: More than anything else, the decision to align oneself with a movement that, ontologically, vows to reject the president a priori, no matter what he might say or do, regardless of your own supposed political beliefs, is a way of affirming one’s professional class loyalties, thus ensuring that your progeny will still be accepted and acceptable at Yale.”

    1. The money quote in that article is this.

      They’re not disinterested guardians of our public institutions; they are actors, working in an industry that rewards them for dressing up in Roman Republican drag and reciting Cicero for the yokels. This is why Bill Kristol, another of the Never Trumpers, could raise money for his vanity website, The Bulwark, and why he could expect his new creation be lauded on CNN as “a conservative site unafraid to take on Trump,” even as the site was staffed by leftist millennials and dutifully followed progressive propaganda lines. Like anyone whose living depends on keeping on the right side of a leftist industry, they understood that there’s only so much you can say if you care about cashing a paycheck—especially when the president and leader of your own party won’t take your phone calls.

      Change “that rewards them for dressing up in Roman Republican drag and reciting Cicero for the yokels” to “that rewards them for dressing up in Hipster drag and reciting Lou Reed and Ayn Rand for the yokels” and you have reason.

      1. you have a hardon for libertarians today. We all know you are a typical conservative who faints at the thought of illegal immigrants have gaysex and marijuana but libertarians are NOT utopian progressives no matter how much you hate them both.

        1. Extreme Libertarians are crude materialists who believe in an ideal that trumps all other values, think economics explain the motivations of everyone and reject the nation state. That has a lot more in common with Marxism than classical liberalism.

          1. Aren’t extreme libertarians ‘libertines’?

            Or Norwegians.

            /narrows gaze.

            1. No, libertines are just libertines. Extreme libertarians are anarchists. Which seems to be what John is talking about since libertarians who aren’t anarchists don’t reject the nation state.

        2. Extreme libertarians are not leftitarians – aka libertine statists – like you.

      2. Lol. To me, Reason’s take on illegal immigration teeters on immature very much from a ‘three minute record’.

      3. Bazingo

    2. “a deeply problematic attitude towards women”

      I would very much like to know why this is taken as gospel. It’s always repeated everywhere, “trump hates women” “trump is a misogynist”.

      But where is the proof? All I can remember or find are two quotes about Hilary being a nasty woman and the crude but accurate assertion that if you are a celebrity billionaire the women around you will tend to let you do anything you want to them including just walk up and grab ’em by the pussy. This is self-evidently true, and calling Hilary “nasty” does not in require misogyny.

      So where is it? I’m genuinely curious.

      1. There really isn’t. EVen on the infamous pussy tape, he never said he did that. He said that is what people do.

        The thing that always struck me about Trump is that all of his kids and even his ex wives seem to get along with him. Republicans have made a saint out of Reagan. Yet, Reagan had a highly disfunctional relationship with his children and doesn’t seem to have been a very good father. I don’t think that makes Reagan a bad person or a bad President. Lots of good people have bad or uneven relationships with their kids and being a bad father doesn’t mean you can’t be a great President. One has nothing to do with the other.

        It does seem to be some kind of article faith that Trump is this bad guy. And like you, I really don’t see it. That doesn’t make him a good President. If you don’t like his policies, it is certainly reasonable to think he is a bad President. But I honestly don’t see how he is some kind of woman hating horrible monster that every member of the media left and right seem to think he is.

        1. The worse Trump admitted to…and something that is bad, but as I was taught in the 1990’s, apparently irrelevant to his job…was that he targeted women to kiss, even if married. Is that boorish? Yeah. Sexual assault? Eh, that’s a stretch.

          I don’t think a good, happy family is proof that you’re a good person, but that few had a problem with Trump UNTIL he ran for President as a Republican indicates he was hardly a loathesome individual.

          Let’s see how Biden holds up to Trump-level scrutiny.

          1. I just don’t care how creepy or handsy Trump or Biden is. If I knew them personally, I might, but all I care about is what they would do policy-wise as president.

  13. I mean I never thought it was possible but Tucker Carlson might be the most interesting political commentator going right now. He’s seeing CNN and MSNBC completely tank due to Russian Fever evaporating and now see’s a market opportunity to bring some of the viewers into the fold. rspect for the smart move.

    1. Tucker Carlson opposes the Koch / Reason open borders agenda. In other words, he’s an alt-right white nationalist.

      This Elizabeth Warren fan wants nothing to do with him.

      1. #scalpCarlson’sratings

      2. You would think a Native American like Warren would be a little more wary of unchecked immigration.

    2. Anyone who doesn’t mindlessly adhere to a dogma is just a “huckster”. The idea that someone might think about things and come down differently on different issues is something that ENB and must of her readers cannot grasp. Thinking for them consists of “meh Principles” applied mercilessly and fanatically to every circumstance without regard for anything else. That is called nuance.

      1. Carlson’s a Huckster insofar that he’s going after traditional liberal viewers to broaden his audience. I don’t agree with many of his economic points but at this point anyone who is willing to fight or draw support from the language fascists of the left I think is fine with me right now. They seem to be the bigger cultural threat at the moment as they are legit controlling the conversation by shouting down or denying their adversaries ability to a livelihood.

        1. But he is advocating for government intervention for the greater good at this point. Doesn’t seem like there is all that much separating him anymore.

          1. As opposed to the ‘libertarians’ here who endlessly discussed the particular merits and demerits of Obamacare (e.g. Suderman) while never getting around to noting that the whole discussion was not worthy of consideration?

            Or (perhaps) worse , all the other people here who cried out “the Republicans haven’t offered an alternative” whenever it was suggested that the whole mess be repealed.

            1. So, what, libertarians aren’t allowed to discuss the practical consequences of laws that they don’t support?
              I’m not saying Suderman is an exemplary libertarian in every way, but his job was to write wonky shit about healthcare policy, so that’s what he did.

        2. Protectionism never works… but if we just impose the right tariffs and subsidize the right people…

          1. If your goal is to scare the piss out of a government which is slowly losing control of their country into taking legitimate action against a problem affecting your country, tariffs apparently work just fine.

  14. Unless a police officer has prior knowledge that a specific individual is not permitted to carry a concealed firearm, and absent articulable facts supporting reasonable suspicion that a firearm is being used or intended to be used in a criminal manner, there simply is no justification for the conclusion that the mere possession of a firearm, where it lawfully may be carried, is alone suggestive of criminal activity.

    PA Supreme Court = SOFT ON CRIME

  15. The Handmaid’s Tale is back on Hulu for season three.

    AND IN REAL LIFE FOR TRUMP’S AMERICA.

    1. Depressing, but true.

      #StandWithPP
      #SaveRoe
      #SUPER-PRECEDENT

    2. It’s why I wear my gopro everywhere to document the story’s of the dead and dieing so future generations can know our story in these troubled times. The truth has to get out. #resist.

    3. Apparently Handmaid’s Tale is getting static from Progressives for not highlighting the problems of women of color. I know the story isn’t about that, but…

    4. Let us hear for strawman political dystopian fantasies.

      1. I’m personally still waiting on Trump to round up all the Jews and gays into camps. I was promised it would happen by 2018.

  16. “GOP huckster Tucker Carlson”

    “After chiding Republican policymakers for not embracing “economic nationalism,”

    These two sentences are directly conflicting ideas and only one line from each other. Be better.

    1. I thought all of the R’s not embracing economic nationalism were RINOs?

      But you’re correct. Trump huckster would have been a better description.

  17. Also the fact that Reason is finding common ground with the National Review crowd is frankly hilarious. If you apply their own logic lately Reason.com is a neoconservative publication at this point as they are giving a platform to those voices. Funny that they seem to be criticizing everyone on the New Right for their choice in allies, meanwhile they are cozing up to the Ross Douthat and David French crowd. If you had told me 10 years ago this is where we’d be I’d have laughed in your face.

  18. Of Thorn’s 31 nonprofit partners, 27 target adults and vow to abolish consensual sex work under the banner of saving children from sex trafficking.

    Women’s agency, you just been punk’d!

  19. “She sounds like Donald Trump at his best,” Carlson concluded.

    Reverse psychology doesn’t work in Trump’s America.

  20. New York’s legislature just passed a measure to make declawing cats illegal.

    So, in New York, it will be illegal to declaw a cat, but allowing abortion up to the moment of birth is cause for celebration?

    1. Sure. What’s wrong with that? A cat is a living organism. A fetus is just a clump of cells.

      #ILoveScience
      #LibertariansForThirdTrimesterAbortion

    2. A lot of people seem to care more about animals they don’t know than about people they don’t know.

  21. our weed orgies

    If I had known about the weed orgies, I would have definitely gone to LibertyCon.

    1. Conventions in general are lame, political conventions especially creep me out.

    2. Don’t get too excited. They’re just fringe horticulture events where they try to cross-pollinate varieties of thistle and milkweed and such. At a really kinky one they tried to graft buffalo bur and pigweed.

      I felt really stupid when I showed up red-eyed and naked.

  22. “…Carlson quoted Warren sounding off on American companies for not being sufficiently patriotic…”

    Imagine explaining to the stockholders how you traded profits for ‘patriotism’.
    Imagine fewer stockholders…

    1. As opposed to Salesforce telling paying customers that if they don’t stop selling guns they’ll have to take their business somewhere else?

      What’s the real difference between trading profits for patriotism and trading profits for wokeness?

  23. “Carlson . . . opined that Warren’s pro-regulation rant was “just pure old-fashioned economics” and that many of her policy prescriptions “make obvious sense.”

    He’s right to a certain extent.

    Warren’t pro-regulation rant was standard Democrat rhetoric right up through Obama’s reelection campaign of 2012. That “old-fashioned economics” is what the Democrats were mostly about–right up until the social justice warriors took over the Democratic party made it all about racism, sexism, xenophobia, transphobia, and other social justice issues.

    If and when the Democrats return to power, it will be because candidates like Warren stop alienating their natural base among the white, blue collar, middle class of the rust belt by downplaying their associations with social justice warriors and go back to the economic nationalism that will win them swing states like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin again.

    Carlson is also right about how that flavor of economic nationalism makes obvious sense. You know what else makes obvious sense? The answer is creationism and the idea that the sun orbits the earth. To understand the truth, you have to think a little bit. No matter what makes “obvious sense”, no the sun isn’t orbiting the earth–quite the opposite.

    Wasn’t it H. L. Mencken who said, “Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people”? I’m not an elitist exactly, but one of the reasons I support markets so passionately is because market signals make stupid people behave as if they possessed knowledge and intelligence that they don’t have! Outside of markets, it’s harder to persuade people that what they’re seeing is an illusion than it is to reinforce what they already believe to be true for obvious reasons.

    Politicians have been feeding on the that since forever. If that’s what Carlson was talking about (or taking advantage of), he wasn’t wrong.

    1. Ken you fail to understand that economics is a value neutral science such as it is a science. Implicit in your entire post is the idea that there is this ideal of a completely free market and the closer policy is to that the “better” it is and any good or misfortune that can be attributed to it is right and just. That is just fucking nonsense.

      Every economic policy produces winners and losers. The people who are getting fucked by international trade policy are not stupid for objecting to that. They are just acting in their own self interests the same way the people who get rich off of such things do. Economics says nothing about which side is right or wrong. It just describes who in the aggregate will win and who will lose under a given set of policies.

      You think a given set of policies are better because they benefit you and produce results that you like. That is nice. Other people disagree. There is nothing smart or dumb about either side. It is just a question of what you value. And the answer is like most answers complicated, subjective, and somewhere in the middle of both sides.

      1. I maintain that free markets are better than government intervention–in general.

        Yes, the government can make life better for some people at the expense of others, but the less it does that, the better it is for everyone.

        I also maintain that markets are superior to politicians at delivering the kind of qualitative considerations you’re talking about. That fact is that if I prefer everyday low prices at Wal*Mart and trade with China to higher prices with American workers making more, I shouldn’t need to persuade a majority of my fellow Americans to share my values. I should simply be free to choose to shop at Wal*Mart.

        I also have a fundamental qualitative preference for freedom. Market forces are people making choices, and the extent to which markets are free is the extent to which individuals are free to make choices for themselves. Even if totally free markets are never completely realized, more freedom is better in that formulation and always will be.

        1. Yes, the government can make life better for some people at the expense of others, but the less it does that, the better it is for everyone.

          Everyone in the aggregate but not everyone individually. Markets can be grossly unfair because life is unfair. The people who suffer from the unfairness of markets have every right to petition the government for relief. To say they don’t is to say that they have some duty to suffer for the greater good. They don’t, despite Libertarians’ claims that they do.

          Further, there is no one right way to have an economy. What kind of economy you want is a product of what the society wants. We no more have to have a completely open market to all foreign competition than we have to have a completely closed one. There are an infinate number of degrees between them. What is “best” is a value judgement. But whatever you think is best, it wont’ work without the consent of the governed. Libertarians like you want to call anyone who disagrees with you not just stupid but claim their position is morally illegitimate. Your polices amount to telling a large section of society to go fuck themselves in the name of the greater good. Even if that were the right thing to do, which it isn’t, it is a recipe for political and social disaster as those people you have told to go suffer for the glory of some ideal that will never be achieved turn to other means and other parties to have their voices heard.

          1. I think it’s important to recognize that creative destruction isn’t just a negative consequence of free (or more free) markets. It’s a necessary condition for economic growth with or without free markets. If the kinds of policies you’re talking about blunt the impact of creative destruction, they’re also blunting the forces of sustainable economic growth.

            The story of aftermath of communism is the story of what happens to economies that are insulated from creative destruction. The reason China was such a backward country circa 1990 was because it had been insulated from creative destruction. Russia failed to adapt as well because they failed to subject their economy to creative destruction as effectively as China did. The reason why countries like Poland succeeded where Russia failed was because they successfully subjected their economy to creative destruction.

            Remember “shock therapy”?

            “In the short term, the reforms smothered the building hyperinflation before it reached high levels,[19] ended food shortages, restored goods on the shelves of shops and halved the absence of employees in the work place.[20] However, the reforms also caused many state companies to close at once, leaving their workers unemployed, and government statistics show this change as unemployment rose from 0.3% in January 1990 (just after the reforms) to 6.5% by the end of that year,[21] and a shrinking in the GDP for the next two consecutive years by 9.78% in the first and 7.02% (see main article).

            In the long term, the reforms paved the way for economic recovery, with the GDP growing steadily to about 6–7% between 1995–7, falling to a low of 1.2% in 2001 before rising back up to the 6–7% region by 2007,[22] often led by small service businesses, long suppressed by the Communist government.[23] However, despite GDP indicating prosperity for Poland, the unemployment rate continued to rise steadily, peaking at 16.9% in July 1994 before steadily falling down to a low of 9.5% in August 1998 before rising once more to a high of 20.7% in February 2003, from which it had fallen until the year 2008.[21]”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_therapy_(economics)#Results_3

            Workers who have been protected from creative destruction for 40 years are hard to place. It may be that the best we can do for such workers is to not protect them from creative destruction in the first place. Surely, the first thing that needs to be done to stop the growth of workers who will never be able to stand on their own two feet is to stop creating more of them, and if it’s protecting them from creative destruction that makes more of them, then protecting them from creative destruction can’t be the long term solution.

            1. Sure creative destruction can lead to better growth but who says growth is the only value in society? Moreover, saying we do not embrace every instance of it is not to say that we deny it entirely. As I said before, there are a million variations of economic policy.

              You are just restating your original point. You remind me of a religous person pointing to the holy scriptures and saying “but the scriptures”.

              1. It isn’t the only value, but the opposite of economic growth is recession, which means fewer opportunities and fewer choices–with the unemployed suffering the worst of that. Economic growth, on the other hand, means more opportunities and rising standard of living. Yes, some people’s standard of living can fall amid free markets, rising standards of living aren’t generally associated with a lack of economic growth.

                I admit there are qualitative considerations in all of this, and, yeah, I’m talking about my own. That’s true with everything. IF IF IF declining gun ownership were, in fact, correlated with falling rates of violent crime, I’d support gun rights anyway–because I have a qualitative preference for freedom. That qualitative preference for freedom is probably what makes me a libertarian. Even if getting rid of the Fourth Amendment, jury trials, the right to counsel, and getting rid of the right not to testify against yourself led to less violent crime and fewer criminals, I’d oppose getting rid of all that stuff anyway because I have a qualitative preference for justice.

                Because something is based on a qualitative preference may mean it isn’t scientific, but it doesn’t mean it’s irrational or that we shouldn’t try to persuade other people to share our qualitative preferences for freedom, justice, free markets, individualism, or strawberry ice cream. You’re right, though, that once we get past the observations about what makes economies grow, we still have to contend with people’s qualitative preferences.

                I guess it’s just important to remind ourselves not to let our qualitative preferences get in the way of an honest assessment of how the economy works. And that’s hard for a lot of people. There are overpaid UAW workers who convince themselves that being overpaid to do very little is in the best interests of the American economy. They’re wrong, but the reason they’re wrong is the same reason free marketers are wrong to think that their qualitative preferences aren’t on display when they say they’d prefer more economic growth for everyone who isn’t overpaid to screw in lug-nuts.

        2. The mistake, here, is conflating free markets with personal liberty. A free market gets you cheap shit from China. Personal liberty means you’re in a position to tell China to take their cheap shit and shove it.

          The real question is autonomy vs. dependency. When your free market puts you in a position of dependency to your rivals, I have a hard time believing you are going to be enjoying greater personal liberty as a result.

          So, yeah, I have a bit of a problem with the More Freedom Through Cheap Foreign Shit And Labor crowd. What they’re selling isn’t freedom, it’s dependency. And nobody ever became more free through dependancy.

          1. There’s no inappropriate conflation between markets and individuals. Market forces are people making choices. If you think otherwise, you’re wrong.

            Your observations about dependencies are beside the point. Because you have justifications for why you think the government should impose your preferences on other people by way of market regulation, trade barriers, etc., doesn’t mean that markets are NOT made up of people making choices.

            Your justifications need to stand on their own without pretending that reality is other than what it is, and the reality is that markets are people making choices–and using the government to impose your preferences on markets is using the government to impose your preferences on other people.

            1. Sure, markets are about people making choices, but what you’re ignoring is that some people’s choices carry more weight than others. Tried to buy any American made consumer electronics off of Amazon lately?

              The reason you can’t buy an American made iPhone has nothing to do with consumers rejecting them, and everything to do with Tim Cook’s realization that he could manufacture more profitably in China.

              So, no, telling me markets are legitimate because “people are making choices” doesn’t cut it when Messrs. Cook and Bezos have already made choices that preclude my making the choice I actually want.

              Tl;dr It’s not the consumer making the choices, it’s the middleman. By the time the consumer gets to choose, most of the major choices have already made for them. Given that the market isn’t offering the consumer the choice he wants, why shouldn’t he appeal to government? Those tariffs sure seem to be getting plenty of support from the people they’re allegedly hurting. Maybe people aren’t too thrilled with the choices they’re being forced to make?

              1. “So, no, telling me markets are legitimate because “people are making choices” doesn’t cut it when Messrs. Cook and Bezos have already made choices that preclude my making the choice I actually want.”

                Messrs Bezos and Cook were successful in persuading people to buy things from them rather than from domestic competitors. Again, you’re just criticizing other people for making choices that you don’t like. If not enough people will choose to buy American made electronics from you to finance their production here in the U.S., then that isn’t about Bezos and Cook’s decision. That’s about the decisions of 325 million consumers who’ve weighed your preferences against other like cost and chosen against them. Turning to the coercive power of government because not enough people share your values is authoritarian and socialist.

                Authoritarian: Using the coercive power of government to inflict one’s preferences on the unwilling.

                Socialist: Government ownership of the means of production and the redistribution of wealth.

                Libertarian: People being free to make choices for themselves.

                Capitalist: Private ownership and prices set by markets.

                The relevant concept regarding public vs. private ownership has to do with property rights, which are also about . . . you guessed it . . . people making choices. When I say I own something, it means that I get to choose who uses it, whether it’s used, how it’s used, how much I sell it for, etc. In a capitalist system, private individuals (whether they’re consumers or producers) get to make those choices for themselves. In a socialist system, the government makes those choices for us.

                The solutions you’re proposing to the “problem” of individual consumers making choices that you don’t like when they buy things from Bezos and Cook, rather than from American producers, is authoritarian and socialist, and I’m not willing to pretend otherwise.

          2. Trade with China is not Free. Not today, or yesterday. It is government intervention of the worst sort – Their government picking us as losers.

            1. If the suggestion is that we should support our own government imposing more trade restrictions on us because trade with China wasn’t free to begin with, then that’s ridiculous.

              https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/94/False-Dilemma

      2. Yes, every economic policy produces winners and losers, the question is who gets to pick the winners and losers; the people (consumers) or some unelected bureaucrat in the government?

        1. The government picks the winners and losers no matter what the policy, because the government sets the policy. That is another thing you don’t understand here. You think that as long as the policy is “free market” whatever that is, it is not picking winners and losers. It absolutely is. You are dellusional. You are saying the consumer always wins and the producer never does, except if it is agriculture and then it is all about he poor farmers and their poor prices.

          1. You are saying the consumer always wins

            I said no such thing, you really aren’t reading anything you reply to, are you?

      3. So, what you are saying is “give socialism a chance”?

    2. These people are ideological enemy’s but I don’t think they are even close to the biggest threats to liberty at the moment.

      1. Yeah, I see the Green New Deal and Medicare for All as much greater threats to libertarian capitalism, and I see Trump winning reelection in 2020 as the best way to fight that threat. I’m looking forward to the day when opposing Trump is no longer the best way to defeat libertarian capitalism.

        I find solace in the fact that our speech and our arguments are far more powerful than we generally realize. Just because I think that Trump should be reelected and the authoritarian socialists who are lining up to defeat him are far worse than he is doesn’t mean I have to support Trump’s policies with my speech.

        Trump is wrong about immigration, and he’s flat out wrong about trade.

        And we should vote for him.

        He gets some things right, too. I can list a bunch of them. Among the best, in regards to the Green New Deal, he said it was central planning, that America should never become socialist, and he described it as a plan to destroy the American economy. I can’t find anything wrong with that from a libertarian capitalist perspective, and I can’t find a Democrat who won’t praise some version of it for some reason. That’s pretty much the end of the argument for me.

        1. I would rest easy. He is going to steamroll the 2020.

          1. That’s what they told Hillary.

          2. Still a longs ways away.

  24. D-Day 75: Nations honor veterans, memory of fallen troops

    D-Day + 75 years. Thank you American veterans of WWII who fought to end Nazism.

    No thanks to American Socialists who brought Nazism right back to the USA.

    1. When I was a young man a DDay vet came to our classroom and told us his story of storming Normandy beaches on D-Day.

      In one afternoon I went from a punk-ass teenager to a kid who respects his elders. Incredible what these men did and they did it for STRANGERS on another continent.

      1. Even more interesting is that many of those brave men were punk-ass teenagers themselves before voluntarily enlisting to fight.

        1. Not all of them volunteered.

          1. Thats why I said “many” and NOT ‘all.’

  25. German nurse who killed 85 patients gets life in prison

    Socialist health care systems kill hundreds of thousands each year via shitty services and get 0 years in prison.

    1. A jewelry box led police to revisit hundreds of deaths. They may have found a serial killer.
      Police are continuing to look for more potential victims, the Morning News reported, and haven’t revealed how the 11 new homicides were linked to Chemirmir.

      A citizen of Kenya, Chemirmir has lived in the greater Dallas area for more than a decade and had a history of DWI and assault charges, according to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. In 2016, he had also been charged with trespassing at a retirement community in Dallas where one of his alleged victims reportedly lived. He is being held on $9.1 million bail. Because he is in the country illegally, federal immigration authorities have additionally placed a jail hold on him.

      1. I hate that Lefty behavior makes me partly defend this guy in saying that $9.1 million for bail is excessive, in violation of the 8A.

        I would also say to all the illegals in the USA who thought they could ride our their illegal stays in the USA instead of properly applying for US residency permits– See ya!

        1. The 8th Amendment doesn’t mean the courts must let dangerous people out on the streets. This guy is suspected of being a serial killer and is an illegal alien. He doesn’t have ties to the community. He is facing the death penalty. If he is not a flight risk and a threat to the community who is? He should be held without bail. Not everyone deserves bail.

          1. The 8A requires that all Defendants get non-excessive bail [period]

            There are no exceptions for flight risks or “dangerous” defendants.

            The 8A does not prohibit, GPS monitoring and police surveillance for murder suspects being released on bail.

            Too expensive you say? (1) too many laws making too many things crimes causing too many defendants to use up resources to do this for the most “dangerous” defendants released on bail (2) Speedy trials for defendants would also speed up the process for trying the “dangerous” defendants.

            As intended, even suspected murder defendants get non-excessive bail and then a jury trial is held within a few months.

            1. You seem not to understand that “nonexcessive bail” can mean no bail. Not everyone is entitled to bail and never has been. And the 8th Amendment was not intended to change that.

              1. I would love you to explain how Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted, allows for no bail.

                In fact, everyone is entitled to bail because the British would keep people locked up until until the died. Hence the right to non-excessive bail and right to speedy trial .

                I know that some people WANT the 8A to allow for no right to bail based on some arbitrary rules made up by government.

                As with the speedy trial right, government cannot deny that right because someone is “dangerous” or the state needs more time to try the person.

                Another point against the 8A allowing denial of bail is that this would allow the state to violate this right by claiming that all offenses are “dangerous” and denial bail.

                1. “I would love you to explain how Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted, allows for no bail”

                  I think the burden is on you to show us where in that statement that “no bail” is unconstitutional.

                  1. Read the 8th Amendment. It provide no exception for “dangerous” persons or flight risks. Those are government exceptions to rights that are being used to usurp the protection of the right to non-excessive bail.

                    Burden is back on YOU to show that the 8A allows for “no bail”.

                    1. No it isn’t. You didn’t even address my point.

                      The list is of thingd DISallowed. And “no bail” isn’t on it. If it the founders wanted it there, it would be there.

                      So, no, the burden is still on you.

                    2. According to YOU, the constitution needed to list that “no bail” was prohibited.

                      That is exactly why they wrote the Constitution. To ONLY list all the things that government COULDN’T do. Everything else that affects basic rights of freedom are fair game!

                      See how Trump is making all Americans stand in a line today? Yeah, me neither because there is no enumerated power to force Americans to stand in a line.

                    3. “According to YOU, the constitution needed to list that “no bail” was prohibited.”

                      No, that’s, wrong. You gave a list of prohibited things, and “no bail” wasn’t on it. You need to explain why if your point is correct (which it isn’).

                    4. “According to YOU, the constitution needed to list that “no bail” was prohibited.”

                      No, that’s, wrong. You gave a list of prohibited things, and “no bail” wasn’t on it. You need to explain why if your point is correct (which it isn’t).

                    5. “That is exactly why they wrote the Constitution. To ONLY list all the things that government COULDN’T do. ”

                      And no bail IS NOT ON THAT LIST.

                    6. It does not guarantee bail for anyone detained. Just that if bails are required they can’t be excessive.

                    7. You say yourself that the BOR only says what government is prohibited from doing. Where does it say that it can’t hold pre-trial detainees without bail?

                    8. This was sure fun.

                      Let me know when someone wants to address the points that I made about why the 8A protects a right to bail for every defendants.

              2. Furthermore John, bail is NOT designed to keep “dangerous” people off the street pending trial. It is to try to guarantee appearance for trial.

                Every defendant is Innocent Until Proven Guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, by a trier of fact. In effect, this defendant is NOT a murderer until he is proven so beyond a reasonable doubt.

            2. “The 8A requires that all Defendants get non-excessive bail [period]”

              He’s a serious flight risk. The bail isn’t excessive in this case.

              1. Too bad the state is violating the 8A about denying bail.

                Precedent does not make it right.

                ObamaCare’s legality is also precedent and it is and always has been unconstitutional.

                1. “Too bad the state is violating the 8A about denying bail.”

                  I’m sorry, you’ve confused me, did he get a 9.1 million bail?

                  1. He DID get bail which makes the act of granting bail constitutional.

                    A judge assigned $9.1 million dollars in bail which makes the bail excessive in violation of the 8A.

                    While what is “excessive” is open to interpretation. Most people do not have nor ever make $9.1 million in their entire lives, so I would say its excessive. This guy certainly does not have $9.1 million.

                    Bail is a surety to try to guarantee appearance at trial. An amount that is payable by the defendant and encourages appearance at trial to avoid losing the bail is non-excessive, IMO.

                    1. “A judge assigned $9.1 million dollars in bail which makes the bail excessive in violation of the 8A.”

                      That’s subjective and I’ve already explained why it isn’t excessive.

                      “While what is “excessive” is open to interpretation. Most people do not have nor ever make $9.1 million in their entire lives, so I would say its excessive. ”

                      Then you totally miss the point of it. In order to get out, he would have to engage resources beyond his own, and THEY would assist in keeping him here because they want their money back. All the people he begged and borrowed from.

                      “Bail is a surety to try to guarantee appearance at trial”

                      And by getting many people to put skin in the game, the guarantee is reinforced.

                      Is there anything else I can help you understand?

                    2. Thanks for clarifying Billy Bupkus, PhD‘s position, Tulpa.

                    3. You’re welcome, I know you don’t take being wrong well, so I’m glad this time being wrong isn’t bothering you much.

                    4. Im glad we cleared up that the right to bail is protected by the 8A.

      2. Exponential cultural enrichment!

  26. Robot baristas are latest front in S. Korea automation push

    Dipshit Lefty hipster baristas making $15/hour, hardest hit!

    1. In Russia, they bring surveillance devices to you!
      In America, you buy your own.

  27. Mexico has benefited from the US-China trade war — but Trump could change that

    But Boehm has assured us that Trump’s managed trade tariffs hurt everyone!

  28. Migrant Children May Lose School, Sports and Legal Aid as Shelters Swell

    No, this cannot be. When Shikha used to write for reason, she assured us that illegal migrant kids were being caged in chambers with Trump standing ready to add the Zyklon B.

    1. “When Shikha used to write for reason”

      What do you mean, “used to”? She still does. The nation’s premier journal of Koch-funded open borders advocacy wouldn’t get rid of its best immigration writer.

      1. OBL used to troll reason.

        OBL still does but he used to…too.

      2. Shika never wrote for Reason.

        Skika emoted.

  29. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D–N.Y.) has a plan for national marijuana legalization.
    =====

    Here’s my plan numb nuts. End the war on drugs. So simple even a dunce politician can figure it out.

    1. Yup. Plus, if all these lying Congressmen would just put their votes where their mouths are, they would have plenty of votes to repeal the unconstitutional Controlled Substances Act.

      *Poof* all drugs legal in every state.

      1. Or if the supreme court would do it’s damn job….

        1. A couple more Trump nominations to replace RBG and Breyer should do the trick.

          Replacing Roberts after impeaching his ass would be an improvement too.

  30. “We all know from common experience that ice cream trucks are magnets for children,” and “in order to protect this particularly vulnerable category of pedestrians, our traffic laws must be strictly enforced,” said city lawyer Zachary W. Carter.

    Fucking magnets!

  31. She said ending federal marijuana prohibition “will be a top priority of my presidency.”

    Along with ending drug prohibition in general and overturning unconstitutional gun laws, no doubt.

  32. New Yorkers may see less ice cream this summer. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and his administration are bragging about “Operation Meltdown,” in which brave city authorities targeted ice cream truck owners who had unpaid traffic tickets. The city insists, of course, that it was for the children.
    ———–
    What an asshole. I’d like to see Comrade de Blasio try to make a living in NYC driving an ice cream truck.

    Every time I hear the ice cream truck’s cheerful music, my heart skips a beat and my mouth waters.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZB6WXDuM1g

    1. He will go after people trying to make a living selling ice cream. Meanwhile, his wife can’t account for $850 million dollars in taxpayer money.

      http://www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2019/02/26/with-obscure-budget-and-elusive-metrics-850m-thrivenyc-program-attempts-a-reset-873945

  33. Words no longer have meaning. “Libertarian” apparently no longer means what I thought it meant.

    — David French (@DavidAFrench) June 6, 2019

    You could have stopped by Hit & Run over a year ago to find that out.

    1. No one is surprised that you’re tongue fucking David French’s asshole.

  34. […] as Tucker and Elizabeth Warren call it, a.k.a. socialism draped in a flag, per Reason’s Elizabeth Nolan Brown. (More than just the flag, though. “Values” are also part of the non-economic side of this […]

  35. >>>”the inchoate political realignment that has made it unclear to which party causes from free trade to privacy protection belong.”

    WaPo finally admits one-party rule.

    and what’s w/all the French? NR went down for a reason

  36. […] as Tucker and Elizabeth Warren call it, a.k.a. socialism draped in a flag, per Reason’s Elizabeth Nolan Brown. (More than just the flag, though. “Values” are also part of the non-economic side of this […]

  37. […] as Tucker and Elizabeth Warren call it, a.k.a. socialism draped in a flag, per Reason’s Elizabeth Nolan Brown. (More than just the flag, though. “Values” are also part of the non-economic side of […]

  38. […] as Tucker and Elizabeth Warren call it, a.k.a. socialism draped in a flag, per Reason’s Elizabeth Nolan Brown. (More than just the flag, though. “Values” are also part of the non-economic side of […]

  39. Anyone else reading about the specific demands being made by the Trump administration in its ongoing talks with the Mexican government to avoid tariffs?

    “The U.S. has called on Mexico to block more migrants at its southern border with Guatemala; to step up efforts against organized smuggling; and to designate itself a “safe third country,” which would mean people entering Mexico from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador wouldn’t be eligible to claim asylum in the U.S.”

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-pressures-mexico-as-second-day-of-border-talks-begin-11559826586?

    Here’s my prediction:

    If Mexico announces that they’re designating themselves a “safe third country” and, thereby, make central Americans ineligible for asylum in the US if they travel through Mexico, the dominant media narrative will paint this as a failure by the Trump administration because Mexico didn’t agree to pay for the wall.

    1. Mexicans pay for the way whether the media wants to admit or not.

      Illegal Mexicans in the USA pay more in US taxes than receive (is the going Lefty Narrative). US taxes pay for the border wall.

      Presto! Mexicans are paying for the wall.

  40. I saw Tucker Carlson’s rant last night. I laughed out loud when he implied that libertarians and economists from the Austrian school are running the GOP. Please. Republicans hate libertarians as much as Democrats do, although they try to conceal it during election season.

    1. And the vast majority of GOPers are hardly nationalistic. Their motives for a good part of the last 100 years or so have been purely economic, by any standard measure. Trump’s arguably the first blatantly nationalist Republican president since Theodore Roosevelt.

  41. After chiding Republican policymakers for not embracing “economic nationalism,” Carlson quoted Warren sounding off on American companies for not being sufficiently patriotic.

    So much for being a GOP huckster.

  42. Like many Republicans in the Trump era, Carlson has been trending away from limited-government rhetoric for a while

    Just so you know, EVERYONE* has been trending away from anything “capitalism and free market”

    *By Everyone I don’t literally mean 100% of the population, what I mean is a huge number of people on both sides of the political aisle have been trending away from it.

    The Overton window has moved so far left, it’s pulling everyone with it like a black hole, what you have on the right is a pulling left on economic issues while still holding on to some doctrinaire “conservative” views in the social arena.

    Everything’s a big fucking mess and yes, we can put a lot of blame on the government’s handling of the 2008 financial crisis.

  43. “the inchoate political realignment that has made it unclear to which party causes from free trade to privacy protection belong.”

    Causes that enhance personal freedom belong to the Sons of Liberty party.
    Causes that enhance government control and/or reduce personal freedom belong to the fascists if they pretend to allow private property, to the socialists if they deny private property.
    Party labels from our dead past like republican, democrat, libertarian, green, etc are no longer capable of conveying meaningful information.

  44. “city authorities targeted ice cream truck owners ”
    About time!! The children! The children!
    EVERYBODY knows that when ice cream sales increase, the incidence of reported rape also increases.
    So by targeting these evil ice cream trucks, women (real and imagined) will be much safer.
    And don’t bother to reply with that old fake science about warm weather being involved in both actions. Proven science shows that when ice cream sales increase, rapes increase; this cannot be coincidence.

  45. […] as Tucker and Elizabeth Warren call it, a.k.a. socialism draped in a flag, per Reason’s Elizabeth Nolan Brown. (More than just the flag, though. “Values” are also part of the non-economic side of […]

  46. I agree that Mexicans pay for the way whether the media wants to admit or not. Thanks for the creating awareness. https://mywordshindi.com/

  47. “Becoming the Libs to Own the Libertarians: Tucker Carlson Praises Elizabeth Warren”

    Reason thinks the government should stand for multinational corporations and foreigners over US citizens.

    They’re fundamentally opposed to government of the people, by the people, and *for* the people.

  48. “Sex trafficking-enabled surveillance” – Wait a minute. This a private group who is using the free market to capitalize by selling to police. What’s wrong with that? So you’re upset when organizations monitor prostitutes and sell their information, but not when it happens to your typical American? What gives?

    Tucker Carlson is and always has been alt-Right. Quit foaming at the mouth, snowflake.

  49. […] Elizabeth Nolan Brown disses Tucker Carlson for his Trump-like unprincipled opposition to free marke…. A slice: […]

  50. GOP huckster Tucker Carlson…

    Seems like Reason’s kind of bitter that Carlson, a former libertarian, accurately summed up libertarianism as a complete waste of time and an embarrassing ideology to be part of.

    But then again, Reason abandoned libertarian for leftist-lite doctrine back in 2016, and nobody hates rejection quite like leftists do.

  51. […] conservatives no longer value liberty or the marketplace. Fox News host Tucker Carlson recently praised some of leftist Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s economic agenda and blasted […]

  52. […] conservatives no longer value liberty or the marketplace. Fox News host Tucker Carlson recently praised some of leftist Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s economic agenda and blasted […]

  53. […] influential conservatives no longer value liberty or the marketplace. Fox News host Tucker Carlson recently praised some of leftist Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s economic agenda and blasted Republicans […]

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.