Future

Bad Ideas Are Spreading Like the Plague

From socialism to nationalism, debunked ideologies are making a return.

|

The defeat of measles in the United States was one of the great good news stories of the turn of the millennium. Prior to 1963, when a vaccine was developed, the highly contagious virus led each year to 48,000 hospitalizations and 400–500 deaths, mostly among small children, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). But immunization campaigns steadily eroded the disease's reach, and by 2000 it was declared eliminated from American shores.

Today, the U.S. is grappling with the worst measles outbreak in a quarter-century. Some 981 cases were confirmed in 26 states between January 1 and May 31—a 26-fold increase from the total in 2004. The CDC anticipates one or two fatalities per 1,000 cases, so it looks like only a matter of time before the disease again starts claiming American lives.

The most tragic thing about the measles resurgence is how wholly unnecessary it is. Whether out of fear, out of ignorance, out of confusion, or out of religious conviction, parents choosing not to vaccinate their kids have allowed immunization rates to drop below the 95 percent threshold required to keep the virus at bay. In October, officials reported that the number of children who haven't received vaccines for preventable diseases had quadrupled since 2001.

At the very moment we succeeded in banishing a deadly affliction from our country, in other words, people began eschewing the measures that made this medical miracle possible.

* * *

Socialism, too, is having an American renaissance. As with measles, if it's allowed to spread, the result will be needless human suffering.

A generation after the fall of the Soviet Union, young Americans have forgotten, if they ever learned, what happens when a citizenry allows itself be enraptured by the promise of communal ownership of a national economy ("Socialism Is Back, and the Kids Are Loving It," page 55). Such regimes have failed whenever and wherever they've been tried, engendering misery, starvation, persecution, and wasted human potential on a massive scale. At this very moment, hyperinflation and desperate shortages of food, medicine, and power are ravaging Venezuela ("Man-Made Disaster in Venezuela," page 75), a previously rich country that had every intention of forging a better, smarter socialist future for the 21st century.

The new wave of young American socialists are quick to insist they have a different, gentler vision—as the Democratic Socialists of America's website puts it, one in which "working people" run things "democratically to meet human needs, not to make profits for a few." But that is a hoped-for end state, not an implementable program. The concrete policies most modern socialists propose—high confiscatory taxes and aggressive wealth redistribution, free college, publicly provided universal health care (and, often, the abolition of private alternatives)—are far more likely to wreak devastation on the well-being of Americans than they are to finally achieve utopia.

Each of these policies does violence to the market-based system of free exchange and private property rights that has underpinned the greatest expansion of human flourishing in human history. Whatever its faults, that system has brought us everything from air conditioning and aspirin to cheap flights and Netflix, all while lifting billions out of abject poverty around the world.

If people cannot keep the fruits of their own labor, Pope Leo XIII wrote in 1891, "the sources of wealth themselves would run dry, for no one would have any interest in exerting his talents or his industry." Socialist policies, by giving government rather than individuals control over an ever-larger share of life, move us toward that eventuality. And the ensuing social collapse, like the current measles outbreak, would constitute a man-made disaster—one rendered all the more infuriatingly tragic by the fact that we should know better by now.

* * *

But if the American left has failed to immunize its youngsters against the perils of bad ideology, the right is not faring much better. Even as America prepares to weather the coming socialist storm, a second thunderhead is forming. As Daniel McCarthy put it at First Things in March, Donald Trump's 2016 campaign, "whether consciously or not, drew upon what has been the clear policy alternative to the elite consensus in favor of global liberalism since the early 1990s: economic nationalism, and nationalism more generally."

There are many forms that nationalism can, in theory, take—some, like those now on the rise abroad ("The Terrifying Rise of Authoritarian Populism," page 67), more troubling than others. McCarthy calls for a "mild" variety. Writing in The American Conservative, W. James Antle III insists that the new nationalism "would not be illiberal in any meaningful sense of the word." Shortly after Trump's inauguration, National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru and Rich Lowry proposed "a benign nationalism" mostly featuring "loyalty to one's country" and "solidarity with one's countrymen." But as their onetime colleague Jonah Goldberg quipped, benign is doing an awful lot of work in that particular formulation.

Define it vaguely enough and nationalism becomes indistinguishable from patriotism. But this new conservative critique is not focused on a mere deficiency in the rah-rah-America spirit. To count as a "new order," nationalism has to differ in tangible ways from the liberal status quo, with its staunch commitments to civil liberties and global commerce. In practice, that means tariffs ("Are Free Trade's Best Days Behind Us?," page 74), immigration restrictionism ("America's Golden Door Is Slamming Shut," page 51), and massive infusions of public money (often with government directives attached) intended to reorganize and resuscitate the American industrial sector.

In 2015, former Federal Reserve Chairmen Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke joined a dozen other prominent economists to ink an open letter to congressional leadership. "International trade," they wrote, "is fundamentally good for the U.S. economy, beneficial to American families over time, and consonant with our domestic priorities." As Harvard's Gregory Mankiw, one of the signatories, noted in a New York Times op-ed, "Economists are famous for disagreeing with one another, and indeed, seminars in economics departments are known for their vociferous debate. But economists reach near unanimity on some topics, including international trade."

The damage, in human terms, of an experiment in economic nationalism could very well be catastrophic. Yes, much of the burden would fall on foreign citizens whose livelihoods depend on exchange with the world's largest economy or whose hopes and dreams for their children's future involve starting new lives here. But higher prices first and foremost put the squeeze on working-class American consumers, and as domestic farmers and manufacturers alike have learned in the last year, trade wars—like real wars—inflict casualties on both sides.

What unites the left's flirtation with socialism and the right's move toward nationalism is the willful discarding of long-understood, dearly learned truths about how to make the world a better place. Like the death count when parents stop vaccinating their kids, the fallout from these developments may not be instantaneous. But bad ideas can be hard to contain once they get going, and the results are not likely to be pretty.

Advertisement

NEXT: Brickbat: Cat House

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. As with KMW’s article yesterday, people do not focus on how good they have it, but instead focus on the imperfections of society, and foolishly fall for major changes to the underlying structure that produced the plenitude. We have short memories of how bad things can be, although you’d think Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea would be frighteningly real reminders. Perhaps we need more coverage on these, and on the Chinese social scoring system, to educate our brethren.

    1. Yes maybe there will also be more coverage on our own crimes against humanity.

      Your masters will continue to force feed you propaganda that serves their interests and nonsense to distract you while censoring the spoken truth.

      Knowledge is power and our masters won’t willingly allow us to have it.

      1. Yeah Rob, It’s all the Jooooooooosssss, isn’t it?

        1. Yes, Yes it is.

          1. Yes, but some of the worst manifestations of harmful thinking come in the form of inappropriate “parody,” which spreads precisely like the plague through the hallways of academia, and from there into our struggling society at large, leaving chaos and reputational mayhem in its wake. Fortunately, here at NYU we figured out how to get quick and effective police action taken to put a stop to this kind of “speech” infection of the social body, and hopefully our model will soon be followed elsewhere. See the documentation of our nation’s leading criminal “satire” case at:

            https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

        2. Edward Bernays reverse engineered psychosis with his uncle Sigmund Freud, both Jews, to develop modern propaganda. It was first used to dupe hapless Americans into WW1.

          Ask Rick Sanchez or Mel Gibson who controls the media. In fact, anyone can use propaganda, it’s just more effective when you control the media.

          Was that your point?

          1. Rob Misek
            July.2.2019 at 5:34 pm
            “Edward Bernays reverse engineered psychosis with his uncle Sigmund Freud, both Jews, to develop modern propaganda. It was first used to dupe hapless Americans into WW1.
            […]
            Was that your point?”

            Rob Misek, fucking bigot, shows up to show how stupid a supposed human can be.
            That’s the point, you fucking bigot.

          2. Six Jewish companies control 96% of all media.

            http://tapnewswire.com/2015/10/six-jewish-companies-control-96-of-the-worlds-media/

            Less than 1% control 96%.

        3. Definitely the jooooos

    2. “”people do not focus on how good they have it, but instead focus on the imperfections of society”‘

      First world problems.

    3. people do not focus on how good they have it, but instead focus on the imperfections of society, and foolishly fall for major changes to the underlying structure that produced the plenitude

      Nonsense. They know exactly what situation they are in and they are not interested in platitudes about plenitude. The younger generation are the direct victims of their elders success at keeping housing prices high/rising. Esp in those places where they have a chance of getting jobs that pay off their student debt. They can look forward to higher taxes themselves over their entire lifetime – not to pay for anything but merely to carry yet more debt that they didn’t incur and that didn’t benefit them. They ARE the first generation that will be worse off than their parents or grandparents – and their children will be worse off than they are – so they can very easily see the direct connection between where their elders affluence originated from – not from actual wealth generation but from the theft that debt enables. They will incur all the negatives of climate change while those in charge continue to stick their heads up their ass and yell lalalala I can’t see it. To them ‘economic recovery’ is little more than huge asset price increases – but they don’t have any assets.

      Honestly I’m surprised that they are merely falling for the moronic mantras and pseudoanger of socialism. What they should be falling for is the cleansing effect of murder of their own parents and grandparents who have put them in the box they are in and even now still don’t give a damn.

      1. Some of their parents. Beware generalizations. Age warfare is no prettier than class warfare, nor any less evil. I would believe you have a point if the young were calling for less regulations and less social programs funded by the taxpayers. Instead, they seem to be all for greater regulations that hinder building and keep housing prices high, and seem all for even more government social programs. So, basically they sound as guilty as those they seem to blame. They don’t want to fix the problem, they just want a piece of the action.

        1. I agree age warfare is ugly. Probably uglier than class warfare. But the fact is that it is already occurring – and the young are the victims of it. This really isn’t about ideology imo. It is about power.

          The old have it. They (we) are using it to the detriment of the young. That power will not be given up. It will not be ‘persuaded’. It will not be ameliorated. Everything – everything – that is ‘acceptable’ to the old is part of the problem for the young. Nor will merely ‘dropping out’ work for the young.

          In that circumstance, I really don’t see another option other than pry their cold dead hands off the levers of power. THEN and only then will the young be able to have a serious debate about what the future can/will look like. The entire argument for socialism is being advanced by decrepit old fools like Sanders. Emphasis on old.

          I can only see one way it might end short of violence. Something similar to Free State Project on a huge and organized scale where the younger generation simply move to and take over a large swathe of the country – say the entire Midwest which isn’t yet destroyed by the debt/asset bubbles elsewhere. An ‘internal frontier’ where opportunity can be built/restored and where their generation’s power can be concentrated rather than submitting to whatever scraps the old/established want to give them. Where the ‘future’ can win the power game by eliminating the future from everywhere else. It’s actually what did happen on the historic frontier. Those were not older generations protecting the things that know. They were almost entirely 20 and 30 somethings – creating something new. That said – I don’t really think that would work now either with a generation that is now completely attached to and dependent on smartphones and an Internet that isn’t even a frontier anymore.

          1. Again, I point out the young seem to be campaigning for the same stupid policies you are blaming the elderly for, only even more so.”Free” healthcare (including birth control), “Free” college, student loan “forgiveness”, universal “living” wage. How are these any better then Social Security (which BTW the majority of people alive and of voting age when it was enacted is a fraction of a percentage). The same with the war on poverty. If you were in your 20s when it passed you are in your 70s or early 80s today. Again a small minority. Approximately 62% of Americans are 18-64 according to the census bureau. 49% are ages 30-69. This group, the largest age group, were not the ones who created the system that has broken our banks. We inherited it. Yet you seem to be blaming this group. Those over 80 are only 4% of the population. Most of the social programs were initiated by them and their parents. The system was in place when the current older adult group, the parents of today’s early adult youths, were often not even born. Yet you blame them for the system? And feel they need to have their power diminished. Hell, it is almost as stupid as reparations for slavery when no former slaves or slave owners are alive. It is normal for youths to blame their parents. It is also understandable that those who have spent their whole working lives paying into social security, against their will in many cases, feel they should get something back (that they were promised). Your entire pre use of who is to blame is historically inaccurate and dangerously misguided.

          2. What the youths are really saying is they want their stuff (free healthcare, school, living wage etc) having paid nothing into the system. Or very little. But that those who have paid into the system the whole life (a system that they inherited and that they are just now getting into power enough to control) don’t deserve anything in return. This would be slightly more defendable if the youths you are crying crocodile tears actually wanted fiscal restraint but they don’t. They want control without having paid anything into the system. When they start proposing actually cutting spending and stop asking for their own handouts, then you would have a point. Otherwise, it seems more likely they favor socialism because they want someone to take care of them and they blame their parents like every generation before them has (at least since the 1960s and probably before that) for the world not being perfect. Looking at it critically, my parents, coming of age in the mid 1970s, and starting a family in the late 70s, early 80s, had just as tough of a time. Arguably tougher. The economy was far weaker and the average person had far less spending money and far less mobility then today. The analysis that today’s youths will have it worse than their parents is based upon a whole lot of questionable, nihilistic assumptions. And also assumes growth rates below what we are currently experiencing, are several years old, and of questionable accuracy.

          3. JFree
            July.3.2019 at 1:03 am
            “I agree age warfare is ugly. Probably uglier than class warfare. But the fact is that it is already occurring – and the young are the victims of it….”

            Bullshit.

  2. I’ll keep saying that “nationalism” is being tarred far beyond its negative inclinations and implementations. The socialism currently proposed is absolute totalitarianism. The nationalism is more akin to raw patriotism and an attempt to use poor economic means to spur better trade practices. We have to keep in mind that this nationalism is a reaction to the previous president and his party repeatedly insulting our nation and attempting to sell it to an institution of global governance.
    I understand that Reason’s editorial slant is all in on open borders, but it would be nice to see them occasionally address the issues with it. We have a nation founded on the preservation of human rights. A nation is a people and somewhat uniquely in the case of the US, an ideologically based union. If you supplant much of the native population with a foreign one then the nation is no longer the same people and as we’ve seen it no longer holds the same social cohesion and ideological consensus.
    Immigration=good.
    Unlimited immigration from societies with significantly different social norms=eradication of the host nation

    1. eradication of the host nation

      The “host nation” is “eradicated” every few generations anyway, even without immigration, due to births and deaths.

      So the immigration restrictionists keep pointing out that immigration will lead to social change. Yes, that’s right. But NO immigration will ALSO lead to social change, because successive generations of native-born citizens won’t be identical to previous generations.

      I get the impression that what the nationalists really want is to have no social change at all. That isn’t going to happen. Nationalism is itself its own type of social change. It would be nice if the nationalists around here could describe what they think are the benefits and the drawbacks of an American society that is even more fervently nationalistic than it is now, which is what they seem to want.

      1. Its July 2nd. You’re a day late on the rent.

        Where’s my money?

      2. #LibertariansForEradicationOfAmerica

        I’m glad you finally fessed up.

    2. If you supplant much of the native population with a foreign one

      Immigration is not “supplanting” anything. It is ADDITION. If an immigrant comes here, it doesn’t mean a native citizen has to emigrate. Immigration is not a zero-sum game.

      Describing immigration in such toxic terms is not helpful to anyone.

      1. You should explain that to the AIM

        1. Read my mind. That the expressly racist nationalism of every Indian tribe is never seen as a problem says these ‘concerns’ over an America first attitude are largely a matter of principals over principles.

    3. Exactly! Immigration that the host nation allows is good.

      What psychos of the Left want, unlimited immigration, just is not for most Americans.

      “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
      -Abe

    4. The eradication of the western ideal of autonomy and individualistic achievement is the goal. Our language has changed over the past few decades, our learning institutions have adopted post modernism in an attempt to blur our stories and history, and the people are told they will tow the line for the “common good.” I find it interesting that the author using vaccination to illustrate a point since forced vaccination, the newly accepted moral common good, precisely illustrates the death of an ideal. Liberty, choice, freedom, independence. This is what our nation is made of. This is WHO we are. Lie to the people and TELL THEM WHO THEY ARE, promise them the utopia of collectivism and since they do not know differently, they will fall.
      But again, it IS too bad that measles, a benign virus that is not at all harmful with proper nutrition (vitamin A in particular, which is necessary for immune function) is our opening example. The left has told us time and again that it is about “my body my choice” (liberty??) and now backtrack when the ideal no longer serves their interests.
      Hypocrisy isn’t pretty.
      There are still far too many of us alive who are not young or old but have lived just long enough to have watched the stories change and see the values eradicated. We won’t go easily and we’re paying the bulk of the taxes.

  3. What’s with the page number references? Did Stephenie Slade publish a book?

    In any case, it’s good ideas that should spread naturally. Bad ones should be inherently identifiable as such to people imbued with critical thinking skills. That’s why we don’t see games like Frogger in real life, where people try to dash across busy streets while avoiding speeding cars, taking hold. The fact that stuff like socialism, nationalism, and National Socialism has to be compared to anti-vaxxers speaks volumes about the average intelligence of the majority.

    1. ” Did Stephenie Slade publish a book?”

      Didn’t all Reason contributors?

    2. They are references to the August/September 2019 print and digital Reason Magazine.

  4. I have a general policy of not worrying about a plague until its death toll beats that of lightning strikes. So far, the tally is:

    Measles – no deaths in the USA, but there will probably be about 2 by the end of the year

    Lightning strikes – 5 deaths so far in the USA

    1. Fair point, but then again, lightning strikes are not contagious.

      1. True also, but you can’t vaccinate against lightning strikes, and measles is not contagious to the vaccinated. It’s a poor comparison.

        1. Apparently that’s false, like much of the other lore surrounding vaccines.

          1. Vaccine drastically reduce the chances of you getting a disease but do not entirely eliminate it. It really isn’t a difficult concept to grasp.

      2. Neither is measles if you choose to be vaccinated.

        Just like avoiding lightning there are behaviors that increase or decrease risks.

        1. Do we really have to point out, again, that vaccines are not 100% effective. In fact measles is 93-97%. This is good but no guarantee. Also, as the number of disease outbreaks increases, the chance of the virus mutating to such an extent as to render the vaccine ineffective increases exponentially. The larger the number of unvaccinated, the larger the chance of the virus becoming more virulent.
          And there are a number of people, for health reasons, who cannot receive vaccines.

            1. That the comment that measles isn’t contagious if you’re vaccinated is a stupid, unscientific statement. The concept of herd immunity is a valid concept. Thomas and D-pizzle’s attempt at snark was inaccurate and a common talking point of the anti-vaxxer movement. I am not certain if they are or are not anti-vaxxers themselves.

              1. as supposed to the pro-vaxxxer movement? Because you can only be on either extreme of the issue. There is no allowance for skepticism.

                1. Pro-vaxxer? Extreme? So believing the plethora of data and over a century of immunology and real world success from vaccines is extreme? Be skeptical, but that doesn’t mean reject the preponderance of scientific evidence. Once you start doing that you stop being skeptical and enter the realm of being willfully ignorant.

                  1. You’re making assumptions. Thanks for proving my point.

              2. Fuck your herd mentality. Nothing is perfect. You can even be struck by lightning standing inside a closed house.

                My point is personal choice and personal responsibility trumps compelled behavior.

                1. Who said anything about forcing anything? Herd immunity is a scientifically sound concept. Rather you believe it or not. Refusing to take steps necessary to prevent communicable disease, thus putting others at risk is hardly non-aggressive. Go ahead and not get vaccinated based upon your Luddite beliefs, but if my kid, who is vaccinated but for whatever reason fails to develop immunity then becomes sick, I should be able to hold your responsible (if you transmit the disease) shouldn’t I?

                  1. Serious question: how are you going to prove it? Also, if a kid develops some neurological or autoimmune issue from a vaccine (or dies), why can’t the vaccine maker be sued? Why are the American taxpayers on the hook to compensate the family? Why has the govt removed liability from pharma? After all, we can sue other large entities (car makers, for ex.) for damages, and they pay the damages and strive to make safer cars. So doesn’t it make sense to be able to sue pharma for damages from a vaccine so that they will have incentive to make them safer? The fact that over 4 billion has been paid out for damages so far shows that they are not nearly as safe as claimed.
                    Just a few things that have been bothering me lately about this whole measles thing. It used to be a normal childhood disease, like mumps and chicken pox, and now it’s suddenly very deadly?

                    1. Lawsuit settlements are not proof of anything other than the plaintiffs lawyers were better at convincing a jury of common citizens (quite often the plaintiff lawyers will move to strike anyone with a science background from these types of juries) then the defense lawyers were. Judges also tend to not understand the information they are expected to rule on the admissibility of, e.g. they often rule that scientifically questionable “experts” such as holistic healers or chiropractors, can testify as expert witnesses. There is also such a thing as jury bias. Juries often chose to side on the injured parties side, even if they don’t agree the defendants were at fault in these types of cases. The juries often feel empathy for the injured party and feel someone should pay, why not the rich company? Anyone who has ever been in medicine knows that even if you were 100% in the right, the majority of the time it is far better to settle out of court rather than risk an empathetic jury. It is why personal injury lawyers are despised but manage to survive public dislike.
                      Also, you are working under the assumption that vaccines are unsafe. First this is an ambiguous statement. Define unsafe. What constitutes safe? What is an acceptable risk? Do you understand why pharmaceutical companies were given some immunity (obviously not full since you admit they have been held liable in the courts) from lawsuits related to vaccines? Vaccines are already unprofitable. The fact is very few companies market vaccines and even less are researching them. Congress granted them some limited liability in order to keep the supply of vaccines safe. Even still, because vaccines are often made at a loss, the number of manufacturers continues to diminish. As for research and development, almost all of that is now either done by the CDC, WHO or by private industry via government funding. There is little, to no, private investment. Some philanthropist, such as Bill and Melinda Gates, also fund some research.v

                2. phillhamian
                  July.2.2019 at 1:10 pm
                  “as supposed to the pro-vaxxxer movement?”

                  You misspelled ‘intelligent people’, idiot.

                3. ThomasD
                  July.2.2019 at 1:31 pm
                  “Fuck your herd mentality. Nothing is perfect….”

                  Fuck idiots like you with a running, rusty chainsaw.

    2. The measles is hardly a plague and many who are coming down with it have been vaccinated with measles related to secondary failure rate of the vaccination program. Vaccines don’t provide lifelong immunity and herd immunity is a myth. This “plague” is an attempt to force public acceptance of the removal of individual rights. This will come for all of us with Medicare for all.

  5. I don’t know going from measles to socialism to communism to a a religious like belief that all human progress and innovation is the result of capitalism sounds like the type of thinking the article is lamenting. American history is as much a history of enslavement and exploitation as it a history of freedom or self determination but here we are with our air conditioners and interstates. China is a totalitarian nightmare but there it is with it’s soon to be largest economy. Putin thinks western liberalism is obsolete and he’s a great leader according to our President and the Russian people.

    1. You should put those idioms into a book.

      1. Howard Zinn already did and it made the kids even dumber.

        Here jeffrey, since we know you’re too fucking stupid to look up your own facts:

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_People%27s_History_of_the_United_States

        1. Have you actually read A People’s History?

          Everyone talks about Zinn like he was some hardcore commie, presumably because he traveled in leftist academic circles and lefty academics love his book.

          But I have read his book, and it does not paint a pretty portrait of authority. Given the absolute dependence of communism on authority, the love many avowed communists have for the book is just another example of their inability to adapt their views to evidence or reality.

          Zinn was really more of an anarchist. Without opening this can of worms, I will simply say that anybody who thinks communism is compatible with anarchism is an idiot.

          1. Consider the can open. Anarchist and Communist appeared to be close allies. At least during the late 19th and through the mid 20th century. Communist believe that authority is only needed until the workers Utopia can be achieved throughout the world. And then there will be no need for any authority. What seems to actually happen is that the Utopia is never achieved and the only way to work towards that Utopia is by even greater authoritarianism. Anarchist are thus, at best, useful idiots for Communist. This is repeated throughout history.

          2. Communism is what supposedly comes after socialism has transformed society in a way that the state isn’t needed anymore. In addition, communists are hostile to all forms of government that are not socialist. That’s why communists seem to have anarchist tendencies even though they promote totalitarianism.

        2. I have blamed that book for years and am only all too happy to see others react similarly. Postmodernism is the real plague; I’ll take measles any day.

    2. Perhaps there is a vaccine for communism?

    3. OG
      July.2.2019 at 7:54 am
      “I don’t know …”

      Pretty much sums it up. If you are lucky to live to be 15 or so, perhaps you’ll begin to ‘know’.
      Fuck off, idiot.

  6. The voting age should be raised to 35 years old. The vast majority of kids and young adults under 35 simply do not have the life experience to participate in decisions that affect other people’s lives.

    1. Just getting to 35 is no longer enough to assure someone has learned to think rationally.
      A slight modification of the ‘property owners only’ line of thought; you have to show you have paid taxes since the last election to vote in this one?
      Maybe prove you did not go to college at any time after 1995?

      1. You need skin in the game. Half of the US doesn’t pay taxes and collect returns somehow at the end of the year. Welfare recipients should not have any kind of vote. At all.

    2. The more stale-thinking, intolerant old-timers with little stake in medium-term perspective (let alone long-term interests) in the electorate, the better!?!?

      1. We are all waiting hoping they pull your plug. Soon.

      2. I’m 45. Likely younger than you but fortunately old enough to know better since the better part of my education occurred before Howard Zion and Jared Diamond became best sellers.
        History matters.

    3. No thanks, I mean I would have been for this if it was proposed when I was younger and not having a vote meant not paying income taxes or registering for selective service. Now after paying taxes for all those years I expect the yutes to pay for my social security (yeah it will only be like 20 bucks a month by the time I retire but I paid into the damn system and expect something back).

      1. You paid nothing into “the system.” You paid taxes to the general fund, some of which went to old peoples’ social security payments. You received a letter from the SSA with a meaningless breakout of your expected benefits, none of which were or are guaranteed. We all know it’s a total ponzi scheme; no need to pretend otherwise.

    4. Neither would I trust anyone over 60 with entitlement reform. Not that I’m arguing your specific point of raising the voting age, I simply think there are inherent problems with democratic-like systems such as ours.

      1. Nor anyone under 30 who has never had to pay for anything themselves. Many youths (of any generation, it was true of my generation, X, as this generation) seem to believe the government’s job is to provide and protect everyone.

        1. Yeah, that type of thinking is entirely contained to people under the age of thirty. I’ve never met a senior citizen who thinks the state should pay for them. Entitlement knows no age.

        2. Thank you fellow Xer. Unfortunately we are the only generation with skin in the game at this point: we AREN’T collecting a government check but surely paying the bills. Millennials arguing for freebies they haven’t earned and Baby Boomers arguing for us to continue paying their entitlements….
          They raised their kids just like themselves.

    5. You’re a helpless waif who must be on your parent’s healthcare coverage until you’re 26, but we should reduce the voting age to 16.

    6. I agree. But also the retired generation is a problem. Voting should be restricted to people between the ages of 35-55 and who have paid a minimum amount of taxes in the preceding calendar year.

      The young are naive idiots who live in an echo chamber of other naive idiots (i.e. the rest of their generation), and the old are a bunch of timid, doddering fools. Neither group constitutes a sound basis for public policy guidance.

      Apologies (but not really) to the inevitable exceptions proving the rule among the commentariat.

      1. Funny. The retired generation is a problem.

        Fuck with me. Really try.

        Retired generation my wrinkly ass.

        Ya want to steal my investment. Pissant show me your product.

      2. I don’t disagree!!

  7. It’s almost like marxist ideologies that encourage nihilism and degeneracy have something to do with each other…woah

    1. As for implying that nationalism and marxism are equally ignorant, I think you misunderstand the underlying motivations of each ideology. The various leftists don’t know that their ideas don’t work. They’re convinced that they do and that’s why they get upset when you don’t want to attempt to create their utopia. The rightists who espouse nationalist ideas, myself included, know that some of them don’t work. I’m well aware of how barriers to trade and price controls work. The difference here is that I don’t agree with the traditional western economic definition of efficiency and recognize that optimal outcomes in the market may be sub-optimal in society depending on its relationship to the market.

      I consider this a fundamental difference because it feels like Libertarians try too hard to equate the right with the left, but there is a massive difference between having different priorities and actually being ignorant.

      1. I will agree that nationalism and marxism are not equally bad.

        However, I hope you would at least agree that if EITHER ONE were taken to their respective extremes, the outcomes would likely be very bad.

        1. Only if you’re under the idiotic impression that having pride in your country requires one to denigrate all others.

          1. nationalism =/= patriotism

        2. I’m all for the national populist extreme of government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

          1. With certain spelled out checks and balances, as well as an understanding that some rights are inalienable and thus cannot be taken away by the majority. Gee, if only such a system is supposed to exist, spelled out in some founding document that is considered the absolute rule of the land. Of course this is all wishful thinking.b

          2. It’s populism if the establishment doesn’t want it. It’s a “grassroots” movement if they do.

      2. Plus Lefties cannot stand when people oppose TOP MEN.

        They crack jokes about the invisible hand of the Market. Most crack jokes about believing in a God or higher power.

        Lefties do believe in a massive Nanny-States that have not worked over and over and over throughout history. They BELIEVE!

        It interesting how Libertarians and Conservatives are fine with the imperfections but great wealth creation from Freer Markets.

        1. Plus Lefties cannot stand when people oppose TOP MEN.

          You mean “TOP MEN” like bureaucrats at the immigration office deciding who is permitted to migrate here and who is not?

          1. No Pedo Jeffy. That isn’t what he means. And we all know it pains you for Trump’s administration to exclude those child rapist illegals you so admire.

            Also, where’s my money? You’re late. Fork it over. I apparently take up a LOT of space in your dull little head. And my presence doesn’t come cheap.

          2. Yeah. Why even have screening for maladies like measles and other previously eradicated diseases. Who are we to tell someone they cant bring their diseases into our country, right jeffrey? There are absolutely no negative externalities with cross border migration. Ignore the aging illegal immigrant population that is a net negative on resources on welfare plans (assuming open borders and reality). No negative externalities at all in Jeffrey’s world. Just rainbows and unicorns. Communism works top if you’re naive and ignorant.

            https://cis.org/Report/Immigrants-Are-Coming-America-Older-Ages

          3. “You mean “TOP MEN” like bureaucrats at the immigration office deciding who is permitted to migrate here and who is not?”
            i.e.
            “muh anarchy”

            I want police to keep murderers from killing me.
            I want the Army to prevent foreigners from invading the country.
            I want the Congress passing laws for immigration to the US that is in the interests of US citizens, and I want federal apparatchiks to apply and enforce those laws.

            Though perhaps you’re right. The Congress and the apparatchiks may introduce more problems into our immigration system than the new immigrants are worth to US citizens. That actually has been the case. Maybe they just shouldn’t be trusted with that power.

            Maybe we should just end immigration to the US. We’ve got plenty of people. If any Americans want more, let them make babies.

            1. immigration to the US that is in the interests of US citizens

              You’re completely fucking arrogant if you think that YOU KNOW what is “in the interests of US citizens”.

              I believe that what is in my interest, as a US citizen, is for citizens to have the ability to hire the individuals that they wish for whatever task that they wish to employ them for. How is this not “in the interests of US citizens”?

              What you really mean by “in the interests of US citizens”, is “whatever promotes US citizens at the expense of other citizens”. So permitting me to hire undocumented immigrant Jose to mow my lawn, is not “in the interests of US citizens”, because it means that I wouldn’t be giving the job to Dwayne the tweaker meth-head citizen.

              This zero-sum game of immigration is poisonous.

              Maybe we should just end immigration to the US.

              Trying to stop immigration entirely means empowering those same despised apparachtiks with even more power than what they have now.

              The only way to take power away from the apparachtiks is to not give them the power in the first place. Which is my position. Maybe someday you will realize that Big Government will not save you from your problems, as I have.

              1. “I believe that what is in my interest, as a US citizen, is for citizens to have the ability to hire the individuals that they wish for whatever task that they wish to employ them for.”

                So, felons serving life sentences? Murders for bank tellers, rapists for movers, child molesters for daycare?

                1. What you’re attempting here is called misleading vividness and it’s a fallacy.

                  I say “attempting” because you’re too retarded to make even decent fallacies (much less formally valid arguments).

                  1. If, and only if, ChemJeff had not made arguments in the past that actually borders on completely doing away with any authority to screen. However, ChemJeff has often stated he is an absolutist, that believes there is no valid reason for the government to intrude upon his freedom to association and property rights. He believes, as he has stated, that the government has no legitimate reason to screen people at the borders. He has stated he is willing to screen for disease and criminal history but since he opposed any enforcement tool, especially once they cross the border, he hasn’t specified how he envisions this screening will occur. Whenever anyone questions his premise, he resorts to several of a variety of logical fallacies. One of his favorites lately is to demand endless citations and then resorting to genetic fallacies. Another of his favored tactics is to blatantly misrepresent whatever his opponents has stated. I have asked him multiple times to explain how he envisions any screening will occur. His answer usually involves him of calling me an authoritarian, and trying to hinder his absolute right to freedom of association.
                    Narz post may be a bit hyperbolic, however, I have never seen ChemJeff actually state how and what restrictions he would support and how they will be enforced. I have, however, seen him repeat multiple times, as if some sycophantic fundamentalist chanting a mantra, freedom of association and private property rights. It is hard for me to see how he isn’t an absolutist on these issues. That is certainly his right. And more power to him. But if he is an absolutist then Nardz question is not misleading vividness. Based upon previous conversations with ChemJeff, I wonder what limits he would support, if any.

                    1. Yes, I do realize you can accuse me of a few logical fallacies of my own in the above the statement. Especially as I relied heavily on anecdotql evidence, personal experience and appear to be defending bad behavior by one by pointing out the bad behavior of others. The irony doesn’t escape me.

                  2. Marshaul, you’ve never come close to expressing an idea here. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to type on your keyboard and confirm it.

                    For anyone else that may have missed it, Jeff likes to make absolutist arguments – in this case, his right to free association and to employ whomever he wishes in any role he wishes. Now, the idea of Jeff being an employer is absurd, but go with it for the sake of argument. He either believes that it is his right to employ the above in the positions mentioned, or he is willing to compromise and believes there are limits on what he calls free association. At that point, he can no longer pose as basing his argument on the principle of unlimited free association. It is just a matter of where those limitations are set. His open borders moral preening is no more valid than one who would block any and all immigration.

              2. ‘ What you really mean by “in the interests of US citizens”, is “whatever promotes US citizens at the expense of other citizens”. ‘

                racebaiterjeff never argues with what you say, he only argues with the words he hallucinates he can read in your mind. Over the internet.

                ‘ You’re completely fucking arrogant if you think that YOU KNOW what is “in the interests of US citizens”. ‘

                The disingenous postmodernist radical skepticism that is dropped the moment he wants to make his own claims. It’s all just rhetoric to manipulate.

                “The only way to take power away from the apparachtiks is to not give them the power in the first place. Which is my position. Maybe someday you will realize that Big Government will not save you from your problems, as I have.”

                “muh anarchy”

                Faux libertarian anarchists are like Marxists.
                Marxists want the goods without the institutions that produce them.
                Anarchists want the rights without the institutions that secures them.

                ” I believe that what is in my interest, as a US citizen, is for citizens to have the ability to hire the individuals that they wish for whatever task that they wish to employ them for. ”

                You can hire anyone you want, Mr. Needz Moar Human Widgetz.
                But you don’t get to impose Invasion USA on other US citizens. Immigration is public policy. You’re not the only one with an interest in who comes to America, despite your burning need for human widgets.

                1. You don’t know what is in the “best interests of US citizens”, and screw you for trying to impose to me and everyone else what you arrogantly presume is in “my best interest”.

                  That is what makes you and your ilk no different than the Bernie-bros out there. That you all think you know what is best for me and are not shy at trying to impose it on me at the point of a gun.

                  Fuck you and your authoritarianism.

          4. As long as bureaucrats decide to take 50% of my income, I most certainly want other bureaucrats to limit spending of the money they took to causes that I favor.

            Stop taking my money and we can have open borders.

        2. …and TOP WOMEN!

          1. … and TOP THE OTHER 70 GENDERS!

  8. “Define it vaguely enough and nationalism becomes indistinguishable from patriotism. But this new conservative critique is not focused on a mere deficiency in the rah-rah-America spirit. To count as a “new order,” nationalism has to differ in tangible ways from the liberal status quo, with its staunch commitments to civil liberties and global commerce.”

    Yeah, people are talking about different things under the same heading as “nationalism”–and there’s the rub.

    One of the things people who hurl the word “nationalism” as an insult are talking about is what we’ve traditionally called “democracy”. In the U.K., they want to be able to make decisions about their own policies in the U.K. rather than have policy dictated to them by continental bureaucrats who aren’t accountable to voters in the U.K. at all. That is not nationalism. That’s democracy.

    Here in the U.S., thinking that things like the rules of naturalization should be set by Congress rather than inflicted on us by the president isn’t nationalism either. The power to set the rules of naturalization are enumerated to Congress in the Constitution, and that’s because the framers believed that setting the rules of naturalization properly belongs within the purview of democracy.

    In my case, I happen to believe that declaring war is also within the proper purview of Congress (and democracy)–even if Congress declares a war of which I disapprove. I feel the same way about how immigrants become citizens. I don’t like the rules as they are, but that doesn’t mean I have to oppose democracy or the Constitution.

    And just because I support democracy when it’s restricted to within its proper sphere, that doesn’t make me or anyone else a nationalist. There’s probably nothing that is rehabilitating the word “nationalism” than the anti-democracy Americans among us who use it to describe those of us who support the Constitution and the separation of powers–regardless of whether we support or oppose restrictions on immigration.

    1. Lefties hate everything that makes Americans Patriotic and Nationalist.

      Tradition, Ceremony, Historical Remembrance, and protection of our Constitution.

      For Lefties to admit that America is truly great, is to admit that all failed attempts at Socialism are a waste of time and energy.

    2. Self government is nationalist populism, government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

      Of the people – no permanent ruling class
      By the people – elections choosing the people of the people
      For the people – policy should benefit the broad mass of the people

      1. Self government is nationalist populism

        No it isn’t – self-government is simply democracy.

        Populism is the belief that the majority should get their way in all things, *even at the expense of the minority*. That is wrong and dangerous, and should be resisted by anyone who values individual liberty, particularly to prevent tyranny of the majority.

        Nationalism is the belief that the in-group of citizens is superior than the out-group of foreigners, and that policy should be conducted to favor the in-group *at the expense of* the out-group. The nationalist will demand that the US uses its superior leverage to coerce and bully smaller states to submit to US domination, even if peaceful negotiation tactics might have achieved many of the same result but with less acrimony. Because negotiations put the two parties on an equal footing, which is contrary to the whole basis of nationalism.

        It is amusing to see the proponents of nationalist populism try to redefine the terms to mean “oh it just means voting!” “oh it just means wanting one’s own country!” “oh it just means being a patriot!” when the history of these things means so much else. Even going so far as to accuse the fucking DICTIONARY of propagandistic tactics when they don’t conform to the simple-minded view of the nationalist-populists.

        1. It’s amusing to see you continuously discredit yourself while tricking yourself into thinking you’re intelligent and principled

        2. Nationalism doesn’t require the outgroup to be taken advantage of or leveraged. It does however, recognize that government should be focused on providing for it’s own people. And there is undoubtedly societies that are superior and others that are inferior. I would argue the more authoritarian and centralized the government the more inferior. Also, a government so weak and decentralized as to be ineffective is almost as inferior. I certainly believe the US is a better country then say China or Venezuela, not because of our population but because of our system of government. Is it perfect, no, but it is better because it at least gives some protection for the rights of the individual.
          Nationalism: identification with one’s own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.
          Dictionary definition. The key word is OR (not and) it can be to the exclusion of other countries or to the detriment of other countries. Exclusion would involve isolationism at it’s extreme but also can include that all government processes be focused solely on benefitting the citizens of that country. Withdrawing from all military alliances and cutting off all foreign aid, while spending taxpayer money only projects that benefit the nation’s citizens would also fall under this definition. This doesn’t necessarily require the detriment of other countries unless you are arguing that all countries owe something to other countries.
          Populaism is a noun defined as: a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups. Again populism doesn’t require the subjugation of the minority at the hands of the majority. But it does attempt to meet the needs of the perceived ordinary person. This can certainly take many forms. You have chosen to define both terms (nationalism and populism) in the most sinister means possible. You have assigned nefariousness when that is not self evident. You have in other words, resorted to the fallacy of definitions. In this case you have subscribed to a very narrow definition of the two words. Again, this is, as in other recent conversations, the result of your own confirmation bias. You also are dangerously close to cum hoc and post hoc fallacies (because I am sure you will bring up certain historical examples). And you also am bordering on an appeal to pity by emphasizing the possible bad outcomes of nationalism and populism. Of course this doesn’t completely negate your argument (to argue that because you resorted to fallacies negates your argument would be the fallacy of fallacies). But it certainly provides some context.

        3. ‘ Populism is the belief that the majority should get their way in all things, *even at the expense of the minority*. ‘

          Yet again, racebaiterjeff can only argue against his own hallucinations.

          ‘ Nationalism is the belief that the in-group of citizens is superior than the out-group of foreigners, and that policy should be conducted to favor the in-group *at the expense of* the out-group. ‘

          How many times does one have to be dropped on his head as a baby to so relentlessly straw man and hallucinate the arguments of other people?

          ‘ It is amusing to see the proponents of nationalist populism try to redefine the terms to mean ‘
          The Projection is strong with this one.

          The Left always projects their hatreds and crimes on the Right.
          Every accusation from a Leftist is an unwitting confession.

          1. Populism is the belief that the majority should get their way in all things, *even at the expense of the minority*. That is wrong and dangerous, and should be resisted by anyone who values individual liberty, particularly to prevent tyranny of the majority.

            In reality, populism is:

            (lowercase) any of various, often antiestablishment or anti-intellectual political movements or philosophies that offer unorthodox solutions or policies and appeal to the common person rather than according with traditional party or partisan ideologies.

            (lowercase) grass-roots democracy; working-class activism; egalitarianism.

            (lowercase) representation or extolling of the common person, the working class, the underdog, etc.:

            1. (sorry, that reply should have been to Chemjeff)

          2. The term ‘nationalism’, historically, and according to the dictionary, is NOT a mere synonym for democracy, or voting.

            You’re deliberately soft-pedaling the term in order to try to make it more appealing, disguising the unseemly underbelly of nationalistic movements of the past.

            Nationalism, as opposed to merely democracy, is a belief that the in-group is superior to the out-group, where the “in-group” is defined as “citizens” and the “out-group” is defined as “everyone else”, and that inflated sense of self-worth can only be maintained by puffing up the in-group at the expense of the out-group.

            You do this on a daily basis when you compare peaceful migrants to INVADERS. You can’t argue against immigration without casting the immigrants themselves as more villainous than they really are.

            1. The term ‘nationalism’, historically, and according to the dictionary, is NOT a mere synonym for democracy, or voting.

              Correct! According to the dictionary, nationalism is the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one’s own nation viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.

              Nationalism, as opposed to merely democracy, is a belief that the in-group is superior to the out-group, where the “in-group” is defined as “citizens” and the “out-group” is defined as “everyone else”, and that inflated sense of self-worth can only be maintained by puffing up the in-group at the expense of the out-group.

              I’m a US tax payer, forced at gunpoint to give up 50% of my income. As such, I want the benefits of my taxes to go to American citizens only, as opposed to paying for random people who walk across the border. It has nothing to do with “self worth” or “puffing up” anything.

        4. Nationalism is the belief that the in-group of citizens is superior than the out-group of foreigners, and that policy should be conducted to favor the in-group *at the expense of* the out-group.

          You’re pulling definitions out of your ass. In reality, nationalism is the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one’s own nation viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.

          As an immigrant, I most certainly view the interests of America as separate from the interests of the shithole I emigrated from.

        5. Even going so far as to accuse the fucking DICTIONARY of propagandistic tactics

          I have no problem with the dictionary definitions of “populism” and “nationalism” that I cited from dictionary.com. As a libertarian/classical liberal, I’m anti-intellectual and anti-establishment. And as a libertarian/classical libeal I demand that US politicians represent my interests in a society based on free markets and small government, instead of the interests of the authoritarian and socialist countries and societies found elsewhere.

        6. I suppose you’re for “democracy” or that which was called “mob rule” by the framers. Isn’t this similar… to what you are describing?
          The majority SHOULD have the say as they are represented. The majority of those who pay taxes SHOULD have representation. The small mindless leeches who use government as a paycheck was NOT the way our country was designed. There WAS NO WELFARE for that “nation of immigrants” you all love to call out. Nope. Nada. No entitlements: work or die. No free healthcare. No “right” to housing or a living.
          You know nothing.

  9. I want someone to do a study to see if Obamacare is responsible for the decrease in vaccinations. Ever since ACA rolled out its mandates about covered Wellness Visits, it has been increasingly hard to get my kids their annual checkup (which would include vaccinations). Their birthday rolls around, and so we call the doctor- oh sorry, you must wait a full year to schedule this, please call back in two weeks. Oh, your kid is sick today, sorry this cannot be treated as a wellness check.

    There are so many little barriers to entry for getting your kid in for their annual checkup, that I wouldn’t be surprised if this is a significant contributor to the 2 or 3 percent decrease in vaccinations.

    1. Offer to pay cash. I bet you get in that week.

      I get into all my dentist and medical appointments within a week because I pay cash for minor medical stuff.

      1. Good rule of thumb: the smaller the provider, the more intent I am on making sure he gets paid ASAP. I work with checks or credit cards rather than bank notes or coin, but that’s fine. The big thing is to make sure that they get paid at the time of service, or as soon as they can get me an invoice. Just like overtipping waiters, prompt payment results in future good service.

    2. Seriously? I can’t even go in for a routine checkup without some doctor or nurse wanted to give me a flu shot. I have to fight them off. I get it free at work, so I don’t want to to pay a copay for it.

      Yes, our whole medical system is fucked, but that’s no excuse for not getting your kids in for a checkup. And when they’re in for a checkup they get their vaccinations if they need them.

    3. My doc contacts me to schedule a yearly physical.

      When I contact him, he tells me he can’t fit me in until 2-3 months out.

    4. The decrease in vaccinations has to do with the more recent push for them coupled with a more educated group of parents rejecting adjuvants in vaccines (read the package inserts) as autism and other autoimmune disease rises. I lead the way. I’m an RN. When you actually have the information, you object. And I’m a libertarian for the record.

  10. The difference between patriotism and nationalism, is that nationalism is a weaponized form of patriotism.

    Patriotism is simply a love of one’s country. There is nothing wrong with that. Nationalism, however, is the manipulation of that love to justify creating arbitrary differences and distinctions between different groups of people just based on where they happened to be born.

    Nationalism can only be maintained by a system of classification that divides the world into “us” vs. “them”, with “us” being the superior virtuous citizens and “them” being the filthy dirty foreigners. Taken even further, nationalism leads to dehumanization of the “them” as a threat to “us”, justifying abuses against the other.

    1. You are not authorized to classify.

      1. We need to borrow Volokh’s Language Assistance Bot

      2. Nor is he qualified.

    2. All due respect, but on immigration you’re every bit as extremist as the craziest of the nationalists.

      Unfettered “let anybody in who wants to come and give them the same benefits as citizens ” immigration would be a disaster.

      1. Here let me fix that for you

        “let anybody in who wants to come* and give them the same benefits as citizens

        * with very few exceptions, for wanted international criminals, or those carrying horrible diseases

        1. Allow me to introduce you to the American Democratic Party. Or the State of California.

          And you would deny your concept of Universal Rights to people just because they’re sick? What kind of monster are you?

          1. Pointing out how disingenuous proponents of open-borders are will not make them debate you more honestly.

        2. Jeffrey, you’ve never once advocated for benefit reform on this site, nor have you ever advocated for a conditional check to ensure no illegal immigrants get benefits. In fact you constantly advocate for benefits such as the double average cost for teaching kids as ESL in public schools, free healthcare checks, etc.

          The only time you say you are against illegal benefits is when someone directly calls you out… but then you go back to advocating for positive benefits in other threads.

          1. As you are well aware, there are plenty of people who use the “but the welfare state!” argument as a motte-and-bailey tactic to argue against immigration.

            The REAL argument (the bailey) is that many of these people oppose immigration for cultural reasons, and possibly also bigoted ones as well. They just don’t want “those people” in the country, whether they are using welfare or not.

            But that argument is too gauche, sometimes even around here, so instead they fall back to “welfare state!” as the pretend reason (the motte) for why they oppose immigration.

            It is simply another way to dehumanize immigrants: to imply that they are just lazy welfare moochers, even when they are also stealing Murican Jerbz.

            https://imgur.com/gallery/t3nvF7S

            So I am totally on board with vast reductions in the welfare state. I am NOT on board with assisting the nationalists and bigots with their otherization tactics against immigrants.

            1. “It is simply another way to dehumanize [Americans[: to imply that they are just lazy [xenophobic bigots, even while they give other reasons for their opposition]

              Chemjeff is consumed by hatred

            2. I try not to wrestle with pigs, but from what I can see Jeff is pretty much right on the money here and, as usual, y’all have nothing better than a constant deluge of elementary fallacies in response: false dilemmas, ad hominems (“pedo Jeff”), straw men (telling Jeff that his position is actually the opposite of what he just argued so that you can trivially defeat it), misleading vividness.

              I’m aware that with in your precious little echo chamber you all tacitly convince each other that you’re doing a bang-up job of generally trashing Jeff and it all seems very back-slappingly clever, but to an outsider you appear to have the intellectual attainment of middleschoolers.

              1. You might consider being outside somewhere else.

            3. Bullshit. The welfare state is always something that you’ll get around to eventually. Revealed preferences and all that. We’ve even gotten precious little non sequiturs from you such as “more immigrants will help abolish the welfare state, because reasons!”

              And you can take your forced associations and shove it up your disingenuous ass.

            4. I’m sorry do you not have any idea of how immigration has changed over time? We do not promote assimilation anymore and pretend to worship at the alter of diversity. This does not create cohesion and common goals or culture. THEN you hand them welfare! I will not apologize: no other country in the world would commit suicide in this way. You are clearly a product of government schools and they’ve got you right under your thumb. Perhaps YOU are the one who should immigrate since you don’t care for American CULTURE.

        3. your correction is a mistake, dullard

        4. Yes, racebaiterjeff has said before that he doesn’t want to give foreigners the same rights as citizens.

          He wants to import human widgetz who are permanently politically unenfranchised, because that’s what Libertopia means to him.

          “Libertarian Moment”

          1. I don’t believe citizens and non-citizens ought to have the same *civil* rights, such as for example the right to vote or the right to serve on the jury. But, all have the same natural rights and a properly constituted government should respect the natural rights of all people, citizens or not.

            You on the other hand want to infringe upon the natural rights *of citizens* in order to create your little collectivist nationalist utopia. Big difference.

    3. Your made up bullshit fever dreams in no way a definition make. How many times must I go thru the rote exercise of disproving them?

      Lets start with George Washington. Did George Washington dispise filthy dirty foreigners and think himself superior?
      Did Simon Bolivar?
      Did Gandhi?

      1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/patriotism-vs-nationalism

        “These two words may have shared a distinct sense in the 19th century, but they appear to have grown apart since. Or rather, it would be more accurate to say that only nationalism has grown apart, since the meaning of patriotism has remained largely unchanged. There are still obvious areas of overlap: we define patriotism as “love for or devotion to one’s country” and nationalism in part as “loyalty and devotion to a nation.” But the definition of nationalism also includes “exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.” This exclusionary aspect is not shared by patriotism.”

        Can’t exalt one nation above all others without declaring the others to be inferior.

        1. Yes, use the dictionaries known for catering to the left.

          https://dailycaller.com/2014/07/21/merriam-webster-editor-apologizes-for-bigotry-association-to-conservatism-sort-of/

          There us a whole movement on the left whose purpose is to subvert words and meanings. If you weren’t naive youd understand this ongoing war. You see active even today with word guides in mainstream press of how they will describe abortion and climate change arguments.

          1. Oh my heavens, I think this is the first time you have ever posted a link to attempt to back up a claim that you made. Good job, you are learning on how to construct an argument.

            By the way: if you think the fucking DICTIONARY is some sinister propaganda tool meant to keep you subjugated, then you just might be a paranoid nutbar.

            Let’s explore the paranoia and how that corrupts your logic:

            1. You cite an example from 5 years ago, on an subject unrelated to the current discussion, which appears to have been a communications mixup between two editors at Merriam-Webster on synonyms and antonyms of the words “liberal” and “conservative”.
            2. You then take that one example and declare that it is symptomatic of a larger trend at Merriam-Webster that makes them untrustworthy in your view. That is an example of the fallacy of unwarranted extrapolation.
            (Here is a link to a conservative site, so maybe you will actually read it.)
            https://www.conservapedia.com/Fallacy_of_extrapolation
            3. But you go even further – you try to frame this one instance as part of a larger coordinated “war” to “subvert words and meanings”. As if there is some vast Orwellian conspiracy of which Merriam-Webster must be a part. This is just paranoid lunacy.

            Maybe you should try “walking away” from your right-wing bubble and experience reality for a change.

            1. Lol, Jeff calling someone else paranoid!

        2. You know that dictionaries just record usage, right?

          The fact that the ruling class has gone globalist and always includes sneering connotations in nationalism doesn’t make the nationalism that people support the same thing as the concept the ruling class keeps pushing in it’s place.

          1. sneering connotations in nationalism

            What you label “sneering connotations”, are actually what sets apart nationalism from other descriptions of self-rule.

            Nationalism is not a mere synonym for patriotism.

            Nationalism is not a mere synonym for democracy.

            Nationalism is its own separate ideology that elevates the national interest above all other interests, even demanding that individuals subsume their own personal interests to that of the state.

            Nationalism is the weaponization of patriotism. It is the type of thing an emotionally abusive boyfriend tells his girlfriend: “If you REALLY loved your country, then you’d make these sacrifices on its behalf”. Libertarians ought to stand against such nonsense and assert the supremacy of the individual over the glory of the state.

    4. “The difference between patriotism and nationalism, is that nationalism is a weaponized form of patriotism.”

      No Pedo Jeffy, it is not. It just means prioritizing one’s own country over that of other countries.

    5. “Arbitrary differences and distinctions”?

      It is anything but arbitrary. Some people build better societies than others. Else why would they come?

      People see what they see. Refuse to see if you like.

      1. Whew, I’m glad you threw that in there, and just in the nick of time. I had my resume updated and my bags packed for Zimbabwe

    6. “muh anarchy”

      Humans have banded together into different polities where different conceptions of rights are upheld and enforced.

      Those borders are how people keep the peace between people with different conceptions of rights.

      “muh race baiting”

      racebaiterjeff is always projecting onto others his own self righteous hatred and loathing of others for what he perceives of as their moral failings.

      But we don’t lock our doors at night because we hate the people outside, we do it because we love the people inside.

      The Anglo American value of Liberty is an extreme minority position in the world. If we want to preserve it, we can only let in as many people as we can assimilate to those values in a timely fashion.

      Import Not Americans, Become Not America.

      Unlike jeff, I feel no compulsion to hate people who don’t share my values. But I do want them to be prevented from *imposing* their values on me.

      1. The Anglo American value of Liberty is an extreme minority position in the world.

        I don’t agree on the “extreme” part, but sure it is not as popular of a concept as it ought to be.

        If we want to preserve it, we can only let in as many people as we can assimilate to those values in a timely fashion.

        So then, you are in favor of mandating government permission before couples may give birth? After all in your view “we” can only handle so many people.

        Import Not Americans, Become Not America.

        You know who else are “not Americans”? Those yet to be born. Do you think “magic dirt” of America somehow transforms newborn babies into gun-totin’ beer-swillin’ Real Muricans that will be as nationalistic as you?

  11. Ever since the Nazis took Socialism with a Nationalist flair and attacked the Commie of the USSR, Nationalism has become a bad word.

    Funny how the Commies of Russia can be Nationalist as all Hell but no big deal.

    1. The story of the 20th century was the Nationalist Populist Capitalist America defeating the National Socialist Authoritarian Germans and other National Authoritarian Fascists, then containing the Internationalist Socialist Authoritarian Soviets until they collapsed.

      Reason turns that history into “Nationalism is Evil”, instead of “Authoritarian Fascism and Socialism are Evil”.

    2. And yet somehow they convince millions that nationalism is also a “right- wing” ideology that comes with a dictator.
      Lincoln was a nationalist

  12. Since we Koch / Reason libertarians support #ImmigrationAboveAll, we should be far more troubled by the rise of nationalism than the rise of socialism. At least democratic socialists agree with us on our fundamental, non-negotiable issue. Recall that it was AOC who helped publicize the fact that Orange Hitler has built LITERAL CONCENTRATION CAMPS.

    Open borders socialists > Anti-immigrant “capitalists”

    #LibertariansForAOC
    #AbolishConcentrationCamps

    1. Now you’re just plagiarizing Nick:
      In the 21st century, libertarians are going to have make common cause with the globalists of all parties, with the people whose core value is the right of individuals to move freely around the planet.

    2. Wow please. A libertarian you are NOT.

  13. What unites the left’s flirtation with socialism and the right’s move toward nationalism is the willful discarding of long-understood, dearly learned truths about how to make the world a better place.

    Maybe if your “dearly learned truths” hadn’t turned the country into the Jerry Springer Show writ large, we wouldn’t be so quick to discard them.

    Making the world a better place, my ass!

  14. Stephanie Slade is managing editor of Reason.

    Good thing she is not a writing editor.

    ==

    What is a nation?

  15. “Whether out of fear, out of ignorance, out of confusion, or out of religious conviction…”

    But you repeat yourself. All these group ideologies have at their core delusional beliefs that defy objective reasoning and require the individual to submit, often as a demonstration of faith or loyalty.

    Sure, believe in a magical god, and all the trivial (and non-trivial) rules required of the faithful, but do not expect others to conform. Or march for equality but do not expect me to willingly give up my property to fulfill your fantasy. Or wave your America first flag, but do not restrict my rights to free association and trade.

    1. But you repeat yourself. All these group ideologies have at their core delusional beliefs that defy objective reasoning and require the individual to submit, often as a demonstration of faith or loyalty.

      What about other peoples’/nations’ right to (not) require their citizens to vaccinate as they see fit contrasted with unfettered right of human (im)migration?

      If you think libertarianism has the market cornered on objective reasoning, you’re sorely mistaken.

  16. Exactly when was Nationalism debunked??

    Was it after Churchill? after Gandhi? after deGaulle? after Walesa? It must have been some time after Mandela

    1. With nationalism thoroughly debunked, peace has inevitably ensued across the ME, C. Africa, and S. Asia.

    2. Nationalism is a form of collectivism where the collective is defined as a nation .

      This is a libertarian magazine. Generally opposed to most forms of collectivism.

      As for debunking nationalism , I think WWI is the best argument against it.

      1. Wait a minute: Britain and France went to war with Germany because a Serbian killed an Austrian? That sounds a whole lot to me like INTERNATIONLISM instead. Weren’t they all competing Colonial powers? Why did the Czar lose his empire over events 1000 miles away? Nationalism?

        Was it Woodrow Wilson’s Nationalistic tendencies that brought us to invade Europe? Noted Nationalist that Wilson was?

        Was the treaty of Versailles and the League of nations triumphs of Nationalism?

        This Nationalism sure does have a much broader definition and concomitant pernicious effects than I had imagined

        1. Here’s a much better take:

          https://alphahistory.com/worldwar1/nationalism/

          ” By 1910, a Londoner could buy dozens of tawdry novellas warning of German, Russian or French aggression. This literature often employed racial stereotypes or innuendo. The German was depicted as cold, emotionless and calculating; the Russian was an uncultured barbarian, given to wanton violence; the Frenchman was a leisure-seeking layabout; the Chinese were a race of murderous, opium-smoking savages.”

          Huh. So it’s almost as if nationalism carries along with it a dehumanization of the other, which itself justifies cruelty towards them.

          1. Your takes all suck. All of them. And the dictionary does not define words in paragraphs of opinion

            1. So, I give you a dictionary definition, and I give you an authoritative historical reference, and all you can do is just say “nuh-uh”. Got it.

              Go ahead and bury your head in the sand and pretend that nationalism is nothing more than reciting a pledge of allegiance. Real nationalism is much more than that. Real nationalism is, again, the exaltation of the citizens over the others. And that exaltation can’t take place without a certain level of degradation and dehumanization of the other, in order to justify the inflated self-worth that the nationalists place in their own tribe.

              1. But you DIDN’T give us the dictionary definition. You gave us paragraphs of politicized Newspeak.

                Here is a dictionary defintion: Nationalism – definition, spirit or aspirations common to the whole of a nation.
                Here is another: Nationalism – an ideology that emphasizes loyalty, devotion, or allegiance to a nation or nation-state and holds that such obligations outweigh other individual or group interests.

                Feel free to consult any other source, including pre-TDS Merriam Webster (MW thinks Nationalsim’s definition changed in the last 2-3 years)

                1. Your second definition is a good one and emphasizes my point that nationalism exalts the nation ( a collective ) over the individual. As a libertarian, I think the individual is supreme ( with the usual caveats of not infringing on the equal rights of others and organizing for self defense )

                  1. Yes, you are correct in that Nationlists took a dim view of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg promoting their own interests above the collective, as many similarly take a dim view of John Walker Lindh pursuing his own interests as well

                  2. We all must pay taxes to local and national authorities. We may as well show some interest in what is done with this money in the interest of the nation.

                    Pure libertarianism as you describe it would be very hard to practice. As much as I like the idea of supreme individualism, we cannot independently extricate ourselves from our nation. Although, if you have a moat built around your house and refuse to acknowledge our taxing authorities, more power to ya!

                2. You gave us paragraphs of politicized Newspeak.

                  Words you don’t agree with = Orwellian “Newspeak”, got it
                  God, you right-wingers with your paranoid victim complex, it gets old after a while.
                  Maybe the reason why the dictionary disagrees with your view is not because the dictionary is trying to inflict sinister propaganda on the planet, but because your understanding of a term is actually incorrect. Did that ever occur to you?

                  Nationalism and patriotism are not the same thing. You keep trying to conflate the two. The article I posted lays it out quite nicely.

                  Here is another definition:
                  “identification with one’s own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.

                  https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+nationalism

                  Note the bolded part. Nationalism is based on a belief of an inherent superiority of one group over another group. This is how I am using the term. You seem to be using the term in a different way.

          2. Nobody, NOBODY, dehumanized the Other like Woodrow Wilson. And he is most noted for one thing, and Nationalism ain’t it. Wilsonian is an adjective that means the opposite.

            So, by Chemjeff’s own idiotic Rules of How Definitions Work, nationalism = antiracism

            1. Nationalism requires dehumanization, but not every instance of dehumanization is an example of nationalism in action.

              “If A then B” does not necessarily mean “If B then A”.

              Glad I could help you with your Logic 101.

              1. “Nationalism requires dehumanization”. You lost right there. You are a moonbat not worth arguing with.

                Tell me flat out: Who did Quezon and Roxas have to dehumanize to gain Fillipino independence?

                Again, who did Lincoln dehumanize? Jefferson? Sadat? Either of The Greats: Alfred or Catherine?

                1. You ever notice how Jeffy never answers a simple question? Weird, huh?

                2. So are you going to admit that you were wrong about Wilson? How every instance of dehumanization is not necessarily tied to an instance of nationalism?

                  Wilson was a racist piece of shit, and also an internationalist.
                  Hitler was a racist piece of shit, and also a nationalist.

                  It is amusing that you are comparing wars of independence to a political program of nationalism.

                  Nationalism is a belief that “my people” are superior to “your people”, and policies that implement said beliefs. Wars of independence, particularly against colonial powers, typically aren’t based on a belief that the colonized people are superior to the colonial masters, only that the colonized people deserve their own right of self-determination. Not superior, but equal. Get the difference now?

                  When it comes to colonialism, the nationalistic impulse tended to be on the side of the colonizers, not on the subjugated.

                  You are confusing patriotism with nationalism. One can be a patriot without being a nationalist.

                  1. I’ll give you this, jeff: you disprove American superiority simply by your existence

            2. Why anyone cares what garbage Chemjeff says, is beyond me.

              1. I will eventually tire of beating my head against that wall. I keep expecting to eventually trip him up and catch him arguing in good faith, answering a direct inquiry, etc

                1. Pedo Jeffy deserves endless torment and scorn. And apparently, as he showed in the comments on the Ngo/Antifa article the other day, I live in his head.

                  He’s obsessed with me.

          3. ” Huh. So it’s almost as if nationalism carries along with it a dehumanization of the other, which itself justifies cruelty towards them.”

            Huh. It’s almost as if racebaiterjeff simply can’t help himself from package dealing any policy he disagrees with with cannibalism and kiddie rape.

            His mental illness should be studied at a university.

        2. Wait a minute: Britain and France went to war with Germany because a Serbian killed an Austrian? That sounds a whole lot to me like INTERNATIONLISM instead.

          Your vapid historical ignorance and general stupidity are truly breathtaking. You remind me of… a valley girl opining on aeronautical engineering.

      2. This is a libertarian magazine. Generally opposed to most forms of collectivism.

        Bullshit. Libertarianism =/= individualism. Libertarianism is about the maximization of individual liberty and that includes the liberty to organize collectively. On a global stage individuals are rarely represented. Nationalism is how smaller collectives, closer to individuals, express identity on a global scale. Without the US, many of libertarianism core tenets don’t even exist on a global stage. WWI (and WWII, Korea, Vietnam, GW I, GW II…) is as much a case against trans-nationalism and international alliances as it is against nationalism.

        1. Libertarianism is about the maximization of individual liberty and that includes the liberty to organize collectively and voluntarily .

          There, FIFY

          1. So you’re now for people choosing not to participate in gay weddings or not wanting men in female locker rooms just because they like dresses?

            1. Jesse, I fully support your right to refuse to participate in a gay wedding if you so choose.

              I fully support your right to decide how you wish individuals to use the bathrooms on your private property.

              Will you support my right to decide who I wish to invite onto my private property?

              1. You’ve discovered teleportation?

                1. No, but airplanes are rhetorically equivalent in this context.

                  Were you born this stupid, or do you practice regularly?

                  1. So all personal transport is by airplane these days? You are the special intellect, aren’t you?

                  2. I know, right? So when it comes to actually discussing the libertarian heart of the matter – freedom of association – Nardz and his ilk just throw up these practical obstacles as sand in the air to obscure the discussion.

                    1. Reality is a thing, jeff.
                      Your fantasies don’t change it for the rest of us, they merely impair your perception and result in psychosis

                    2. No, Nardz, you are instead deliberately obfuscating the discussion. Which was your whole point all along.

                  3. You don’t realize that nations have a right to, and do, control their airspace?
                    Oh my

                  4. No, but airplanes are rhetorically equivalent in this context.

                    Only someone who’d never been to an airport of any kind could be this rhetorically retarded.

              2. Will you support my right to not have those individuals impose their rules on me? No? Didn’t think so. You’re all for compelled association as long as it’s the right people versus the wrong.

                The Pigeon strikes again.

                1. Will you support my right to not have those individuals impose their rules on me?

                  Considering how many of our problems were created by white native-born citizens, I would imagine that you would actually be more fearful of having native-born citizens imposing THEIR rules on you.

                  Are you asking if I think that immigrants should be granted the right to vote at the border? No. Are you asking if I think that immigrants should NEVER be eligible to vote, ever? Also, no.

                  I think you have asked a leading question in order to try to score a point without having to be responsible for the result.

      3. Does free association equal collectivism?

        If not, how and why?

        1. I think generally what most people mean around here, when they rail against collectivism, is involuntary collectivism.

          I certainly don’t have a problem if you want to voluntarily sign up to be a part of some hippie collective and practice pure communism.

          The problem arises if you were forced involuntarily to join a collective.

          1. There is no such thing as voluntary collectivism. That is an oxy from your moron.

            1. Sure there is. Such as, if a group of individuals voluntarily form a club.

              1. That is a voluntary association, unless they are forced to remain part of the group forevermore, but then that’s no longer voluntary.

                1. Yes, and while they remain. members of the club, they are still acting as a collective unit.

                  Collectivism doesn’t just have to mean “forced Soviet-style socialism”.

          2. No, they are concerned about the “group think” associated with collectivist dogma that infringes on their individual rights. Forced vaccination hysteria at the intro is an excellent example of a reason to fear collectivist thought. It is becoming a crime to demand MEDICAL CHOICE.

      4. Libertarians are for volunteerism. Individuals uniting for very specific goals.

        Common Defense is one example.

        Collectivism tends to require force over the uncooperative individual for the collective good.

        1. My god libertarianism is not collectivist and this “organizing” crap you keep spewing is such collectivist bs. Most of us aren’t even joiners. That’s our primary problem and the reason we still don’t have any power.

    3. “Exactly when was Nationalism debunked??”

      Around the time tariffs on imports from slaves states were debunked.

  17. Whether out of fear, out of ignorance, out of confusion, or out of religious conviction, parents choosing not to vaccinate their kids have allowed immunization rates to drop below the 95 percent threshold required to keep the virus at bay.

    Fuck you Reason and your false fucking narrative. A significant portion of the outbreaks have been from various avenues of uncontrolled and/or illegal immigration. Acting like it’s all religious fundies ignores the fact that your just as much a part of the dustbin of history as they or the nationalists you bemoan.

    1. Did your mom drop you on your head as a baby? Or just not vaccinate you?

      1. Touched a nerve did he?

      2. You can look at increased rates in border patrol holding stations and in migrant communities I’d you care to look.

        1. You can look at increased rates in border patrol holding stations and in migrant communities I’d you care to look.

          Your citation is missing.

          1. Jeff fails again.
            I’d say this is becoming a trend, but the word becoming is inaccurate

    2. ” A significant portion of the outbreaks have been from various avenues of uncontrolled and/or illegal immigration. ”

      Immigration adds to our viral diversity, and and viral diversity is our strength!

      Only an evil racist Nazi White Supremacist Hitler would deny that!

  18. Nationalism is terrible, says some spoiled white woman living in the richest and freest society in history. But, hey lets get rid of that evil nationalism and all manifestations of it. Lets get rid of any control over the borders and disband the military. When Stephanie ends up an ISIS sex slave, she can at least take solice that evil nationalism is no longer a problem.

    1. You ever notice how Nationalism is OK when it’s exclusively for Brown People? Applauded, even. But when it’s for Americans (of all shades), it’s bad? And Europeans, they don’t mind certain kinds of nationalism, either. They are even OK with, even like IRISH Nationalism. It’s just the British variety they don’t care for.

      So, there we have it. Nationalism is great for everybody, even White people, as long as it isn’t American or British. What with all the icky problematic history that entails. The 2 most sinful nations in the history of Earth, junior growing up to far exceed the wicked ways of his old man.

      What we have are elites in London and on the Continent and on the bi-coasts here (but not the nice coast, the southern Gulf coast) who have a real problem with Nationalism propping up the corpses of the former US and UK, when they should both go away and give way to new emerging markets, and, oh, BTW, new emerging voting constituencies to replace the old worn out ones in the hinterlands.

      1. “You ever notice how Nationalism is OK when it’s exclusively for Brown People?”

        It’s only racist when Whitey does it.
        It’s only racist when Whitey does it.
        It’s only racist when Whitey does it.

    2. Exactly John!

      Nothing like People trying to get rid of one of the foundational principles that made America so great.

      Americans made America great and she hates that. She must be an American’t.

      1. American’t.
        +1

    3. There are always lots of counter tribalists, traitors, and subnormal idiots (like Pedo Jeffy) who want to tear down this country. Even though for many of them it will mean their own destruction. Sick fuckers like that have got to go.

      1. I want to ensure that all these anti-Nationalist zealots clock in on time Thursday morning, and don’t enjoy any malt alcohol beverages or processed meats cooked over an open flame

        1. Why?

          Patriotism is not the same as nationalism.

          I’m a patriot. I have a great fondness for the country.

          I’m not a nationalist. I don’t believe Americans are superior human beings just because they were born here. I don’t believe that individual interests should be subsumed beneath the interests of the state.

          1. You’re a psychotic with a deep hatred of yourself.
            Unfortunately, you’re too weak to face this fact, so you take all your bitterness, bile, and resentment and project it onto people who actually have pride in themselves and their culture.
            Were you not an utter coward with a necessary lack of insight and introspection, you’d have just killed yourself and ended the misery.
            Unfortunately, people as resentful as yourself are unable to tolerate individuality and feel compelled to spread your misery to others.
            I look forward to the day your psyche’s defense mechanisms finally breakdown, and you are finally submerged in the realization of your own shittiness.

            1. “Oh, wretched ephemeral man… why do you compel me to tell you what it would be most expedient for you not to hear? What is best of all is utterly beyond your reach: not to be born, not to be, to be nothing. But the second best for you is—to die soon.”

            2. Well that’s an amusing bit of pseudo-psychology.

              unable to tolerate individuality

              You mean, rugged individualists such as yourself?

              You’re a Trumpbot. What is so original about that?

              “Oh no way man, I’m a Trumpbot who supports legal weed! Totally individual!”

              1. Chemjeff, always mistaking his fantasies for reality.
                Don’t kill yourself – you’re far too helpful to my cause

          2. You’re a fucking retarded liar Jeff. Not a patriot.

            1. Of course! “Real Patriotism” means putting kids in cages and forcing migrants to drink out of toilets! Amirite?

              1. Chemjeff has gone full ocasio-cortez.
                That’s always who he was, but not trying to hide it anymore

              2. “forcing migrants to drink out of toilets!”

                How’s that citation coming, Jeffy? I know it’s the narrative that you desperately need but no one was forced to drink out of the toilet. The illegal alien whom you think you want to hire (you don’t) couldn’t figure out how to work the faucet.

                Best and brightest.

                1. It’s amusing how readily you will accept unnamed, anonymous sources, especially from those coming from the government with a large incentive to cover up their own misdeeds, to confirm YOUR narrative that you wish to believe.

                  Here is AOC’s tweet on the matter:

                  https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1145837522355924992

                  Maybe she is lying, sure. But wow it didn’t take much to convince you she was lying, did it? Just a bunch of anonymous unnamed sources.

          3. “I’m a patriot. I have a great fondness for the country.”

            You display your hatred of Americans everyday.

            1. I display my hatred of authoritarian shitheels like you every day.

              Fortunately you are not representative of the entire nation.

              Nor does patriotism means endorsing every view held by every American. It is only a love of country. Which is true. I love this country which is why I don’t want it to go down the path of paranoid xenophobia that you are determined to push it down on.

    4. “Nationalism is terrible, says some spoiled white woman living in the richest and freest society in history. ”

      A country where nationalism was an entirely unquestioned value and governing principle until the recent decades.

    1. Not only that but a large percentage of Americans affected have been vaccinated and the mainstream says “we aren’t sure…”
      Anybody here know that vaccine strain measles is also accounted for in this tally?
      Good luck promoting legislation that removes an individual’s medical right to informed consent and to refuse biologics. You’re next.

    2. I’m waiting for the inevitable pile on.

  19. Socialism: The Rubella of politics.
    Fascism: The Pertussis of politics.

    What the fuck is it with all these antivaxxers running things?

    1. Welfare state:. Bubonic plague of politics.

    2. Democrats: The Hemorrhoids of politics

  20. Why anyone would want Socialism/Communism is beyond my comprehension and makes my head want to explode. All one has to do is look at how completely inept the US government is run now. Waste everywhere you look, useless agencies, freedom eroding legislation, etc. All in a supposed capitalist free (constitutional republic) society…

    I think people that support Socialism should spend an entire month of just visiting government agencies such as the DMV, VA, TSA (airport), social security office, post office, HUD, etc. Then come back and tell me you still prefer government to run the entire show.

    1. “I think people that support Socialism should spend an entire month of just visiting government agencies such as the DMV, VA, TSA (airport), social security office, post office, HUD, etc. ”

      Thomas Sowell was a Marxist when he enrolled at University of Chicago.
      He was still a Marxist after a year studying under Milton Friedman.
      But a summer working for the Labor Department set him straight.

  21. The Standard ‘the right has a problem too’ unfortunately made its appearance.

    Meh.

    Between the rise of socialism and nationalism there’s no question the former has a far more predictable outcome thanks to its documented dark track record.

    I’m no fan of nationalism either (which like all ideologies is actually a strain of liberalism if we go back to the 19th century) but that its witnessing a revival is largely a reaction to what the left and its totalitarian tendencies have been selling these past few years.

    Tired of the false equivalencies (if this is accepted). Citizens of the West have to guard against socialism. Not nationalism.

    In fact, if Bernie Sanders and all the psycho ideas in the modern progressive policies in North America were to go away and students suddenly grow a pair and actually READ history properly, nationalism would whither. There would be no need for it.

    But Sanders is here (and Trudeau in Canada) and they have some very bad plans in the works.

    1. psycho ideas in the modern progressive arsenal of policies in North America

    2. “The Standard ‘the right has a problem too’ unfortunately made its appearance.”

      “Both sides!” is mandatory in any article that makes the slightest criticism of the Left.

  22. But I should add despite my comment….good article. We need more of these.

  23. The comparison of measles, socialism and national is interesting. The resurgence of measles is in part due to a lack of worry. Few cases cause people to be complacent. This is not really new with measles. During the race to find a polio vaccine, measles was killing significantly more people. Measles was seen as a regular childhood illness while polio, affecting the President Roosevelt and crippling children was seen as a national emergency.
    Interest in socialism and national both are the result of anxiety. Part of the problem is that those opposing both ideologies seem to want to combat them with more fear. Instead of telling people how good they have it, I suggest helping them explore their fears and looking for solutions. What worries people? I suggest health care, employment, and the environment for starts. Better to address how democratic capitalism can address these, than to try to scare me with talk of socialism or nationalism for that matter. Why are bad ideas spreading, because few good ideas are being put forward.

    1. “I suggest health care, employment, and the environment for starts”

      Employment is legitimate.
      The other two, healthcare and climate change (what you mean when you say environment), are symptoms of weakness and narcissistic megalomania.
      You can fuck right off with that bullshit.

      1. I recently met two old classmates for dinner. Both are retired businessmen and conservative. Their biggest concern healthcare. I got an earful of complaints about drug pricing and portability. Now you can address this in the market place or accept Medicare for All. What you can not do is just pretend it doesn’t matter and ignore it.

        1. Now you can address this in the market place or accept Medicare for All.

          Do we call you out on the false dilemma, or the question-begging?

  24. I’m not an anti vaxer yet but my mind is changing. today we vaccinated for things that no one ever gets, up to 33 different vaccines, and that always begs a question as to why and there are clear examples of problems after vaccinations and it may not be the individual vaccines but vaccines these days are for multiple items which may be the real problem with overloading the bodies system especially for the young. just my 2 cents

    1. I’m waiting for the inevitable pile on.

    2. I think ‘up to 33’ is the key. Doctors don’t recommend all vaccines, just some. And they select those depending on the threat in different years. At least, that’s been my experience with my daughter.

    3. “today we vaccinated for things that no one ever gets”

      hmmmmm, I’m gonna have to study on this one a while to figure out why that might be the case

      1. The list i was shown was for thing I’d never heard of but I’ll admit the source of the list may also be suspect and i also need to delve further into it

    4. Kids these days are definitely getting way more vaxx than my kids 35 yrs ago, and way, way more than we got in the fifties and sixties. Measles, mumps, and chicken pox used to be normal childhood diseases that everyone got and then had lifelong immunity, instead of having to get multiple shots and boosters, filled with all kinds of shitty ingredients – formaldehyde, aluminum, animal dna, anti-freeze, etc.
      I’m no anti-vaxxer, either, but holy hell, kids are getting a shit-ton of vaccines these days.

    5. Ask to read the package inserts.
      -RN

  25. Bad ideas always appeal to bad people and the incurably insane.

    1. …but enough about Rev Artie

  26. And don’t get me started on the neo-liberal cosmopolitan bullshit that magazines like Reason try to peddle as if it were libertarianism.

    1. +100

      reason even added popup videos to really fuck this experience up.

    2. You’re so right. “Real libertarianism” would consist of Trump boot-licking and kicking out the furriners!

      1. You’re not really free unless you’re free to fuck an underage Mexican prostitute and get her a taxpayer funded abortion amirite?

        1. Chemjeff cannot afford most things. He has trouble maintaining a roof over his head.

          1. Certainly not self-supporting; who would trust him as even a Walmart greeter?

        2. I thought you were dead, James Brown. If this is what Zombie James Brown thinks, then maybe James Brown should stay dead.

      2. Apparently, the only choice voters get in Chemjeff-style “libertarianism” is whether to lick Trump’s boots or some socialist’s boot.

        1. I believe that is what’s known as a “false choice”.

          Here is a hint: I don’t believe in boot-licking any emperor.

          1. Here is a hint: I don’t believe in boot-licking any emperor.

            Yes, honey, you do. That’s why you accuse libertarians of “Trump boot-licking”. It is inconceivable to you that there are choices other than either your authoritarian socialism or “Trump boot-licking”.

            I believe that is what’s known as a “false choice”.

            Correct. And that’s exactly your problem: “false choice”. It’s because you are too dumb and ignorant to conceive of any other possibilities.

            1. I don’t accuse libertarians of “Trump boot-licking”. I accuse Trump boot-lickers of Trump boot-licking. And the Reason commentariat has more than its fair share of Trump boot-lickers around here.

              So, when it comes to immigration, what do you think a libertarian ought to support, and how is it consistent with long-standing libertarian principles like the Non-Aggression Principle?

              1. “I’M NOT CRAZY!!! YOURE CRAZY!!!”
                -chemjeff, dumbass psychotic

              2. So, when it comes to immigration, what do you think a libertarian ought to support, and how is it consistent with long-standing libertarian principles like the Non-Aggression Principle?

                I think libertarians can reasonably have a range of views on illegal migration within the context of the current legal, social, and economic situation in the US. It’s something one can rationally debate.

                What is unreasonable is what you are doing, namely (1) simply insisting that yours is the only possible view, and (2) accusing everybody who disagrees with you is a “Trump boot-licker”.

                1. I think libertarians can reasonably have a range of views on illegal migration within the context of the current legal, social, and economic situation in the US. It’s something one can rationally debate.

                  Okay, so put your idea out there, while demonstrating how it is consistent with generally agreed upon libertarian principles.

                  I am not shy in stating my own views and defending them in the context of liberty. I have never claimed that mine are THE ONLY possible legitimate view out there. If you have an alternate view, STATE IT and make your case. But if your view just happens to coincide 100% with the Trump view, then I’m going to dismiss it as just another Republican masquerading as a libertarian trying to gaslight us all into believing that libertarians and Republicans can be compatible on this issue.

                  1. I commend you for admitting that you’re a bigot, jeff.
                    It’s the first honest thing you’ve ever said

              3. chemjeff radical individualist
                July.2.2019 at 7:45 pm
                “I don’t accuse libertarians of “Trump boot-licking”. I accuse Trump boot-lickers of Trump boot-licking.”

                Bullshit.
                Fuck off, slaver.

      3. “Orange Man Bad!”

  27. “A generation after the fall of the Soviet Union, young Americans have forgotten, if they ever learned”

    The Left writes the history books which leave out the part that Nazi is short for Nationalsozialistische, and that the US became the world superpower under the an explicitly nationalist economic policy funded primarily by tariffs through most of it’s history.

    “In practice, that [nationalism] means tariffs (“Are Free Trade’s Best Days Behind Us?,” page 74), immigration restrictionism (“America’s Golden Door Is Slamming Shut,” page 51), and massive infusions of public money (often with government directives attached) intended to reorganize and resuscitate the American industrial sector.”

    Notice how there is no link to the “massive infusions of public money”? I did.

    Obviously, it has happened, such as with the bank bailouts, but I don’t see Trump or those calling themselves nationalists calling for more of it now.

    Reason slips in the threat of central planning and control into nationalism because the other two policies they identify, tariffs and immigration limitations, are in fact popular and the proper policies for a government “for the people”.

    So yes, immigration limited to that which benefits US citizens. That’s the “government for the people” part that Americans used to take for granted, but now is ignored as the ruling class uses it’s power to enrich itself at the expense of US citizens generally.

    And yes, tariffs.

    Tariffs which were an explicit part of US economic policy since it’s founding. And Adam Smith would have approved.

    Reason says Free Trade is when American workers pay payroll and income taxes, while Emperor Xi’s imports pay no tax.

    Adam Smith disagrees, favoring tariffs to offset local taxes on production:

    “It will generally be advantageous to lay some burden upon foreign industry for the encouragement of domestic industry, when some tax is imposed at home upon the produce of the latter. In this case, it seems reasonable that an equal tax should be imposed upon the like produce of the former. This would not give the monopoly of the borne market to domestic industry, nor turn towards a particular employment a greater share of the stock and labour of the country, than what would naturally go to it. It would only hinder any part of what would naturally go to it from being turned away by the tax into a less natural direction, and would leave the competition between foreign and domestic industry, after the tax, as nearly as possible upon the same footing as before it.”

    1. You keep repeating that. It does not mean what you think it does.

      Smith is talking about a temporary retaliatory tax. It seems reasonable yet he argues against such taxation.

      You did not read this part. “When there is no probability that any such repeal [of a tariff in a foreign country] can be procured, it seems a bad method of compensating the injury done to certain classes of our people to do another injury ourselves, not only to those classes, but to almost all the other classes of them. When our neighbours prohibit some manufacture of ours, we generally prohibit, not only the same, for that alone would seldom affect them considerably, but some other manufacture of theirs. This may no doubt give encouragement to some particular class of workmen among ourselves, and by excluding some of their rivals, may enable them to raise their price in the home-market. Those workmen, however, who suffered by our neighbours prohibition will not be benefited by ours. On the contrary, they and almost all the other classes of our citizens will thereby be obliged to pay dearer than before for certain goods. Every such law, therefore, imposes a real tax upon the whole country, not in favour of that particular class of workmen who were injured by our neighbours prohibition, but of some other class. (Bk. 4, Ch. 2)”

      1. And if the tax is paid by the taxed ( tariffed ) country due to competitive pressure?

        1. Then the products imported cost more. Is that a surprise?

        2. And as the price rises who pays the tax?

          Countries do not pay taxes. Individuals do.

          1. Now do income tax. Reason wet its pants over income tax reform last year because WE NEED THE MONEY!!! And yet when presented with tariffs we get the immediate flip-flop with the screaming headlines that TARIFFS ARE TAXES!!!!

            Consumption taxes are generally more efficient. Tariffs occupy a middle ground because they aren’t necessarily broad broad based, but the rank hypocrisy of Reason on this issue deserves to be called out.

            1. Reason: Free trade is when American workers pay payroll and income taxes, while Emperor Xi’s imports pay no tax.

              Why should domestic *labor* be taxed when purchased, but not foreign goods?

              Cui bono?

      2. “Smith is talking about a temporary retaliatory tax.”

        Smith talks about retaliatory tariffs *later* on a *separate* point that he *explicity* separates.

        There seem, however, to be two cases in which it will generally be advantageous to lay some burden upon foreign for the encouragement of do-mestic industry.
        pg 355

        Case 1
        The first is, when some particular sort of industry is necessary for the defence of the country
        pg 355

        Case 2
        The second case, in which it will generally be advantageous to lay some burden upon foreign for the encouragement of domestic industry is, when some tax is imposed at home upon the produce of the latter
        pg 366

        “As there are two cases in which it will *generally*be*advantageous* to lay some burden upon foreign for the encouragement of domestic industry, ” [the previously mentioned National Defense and offset for domestic taxes on production]
        “so there are two ***others*** [others means others]
        in which it may *sometimes*be*a*matter*of*deliberation; in the one, how far it is proper to continue the free importation of certain foreign goods; and in the other, how far, or in what manner, it may be proper to restore that free importation after it has been for some time interrupted.
        The case in which it may *sometimes*be*a*matter*of*deliberation how far it is proper to continue the free importation of certain foreign goods is, when some foreign nation restrains by high duties or prohibitions the importation of some of our manufactures into their country.”
        pg 358

        So the first of the second batch of *sometimes*be*a*matter*of*deliberation is retaliatory tariffs.

        This is explicitly separate from the two cases which would *generally*be*advantageous*, the second of which was tariffs to offset local taxes on production.

  28. Wanna bet that these vaccine deniers are the same people who will me I am a climate denier.

  29. These diseases are not really eradicated or eliminated. They are suppressed by modern medicine and vaccinations. When you start removing the methods that are suppressing these diseases, that’s when they start reappearing.

  30. and what if immigration leads to electoral changes which result in more socialist and property stealing public policy?

    1. That is the strategy.

      Luckily, Trump was elected and he is fighting to set that strategy back so it will likely never happen.

      The Democrat Party is spiraling toward national political irrelevance. Buying votes with free shit, flooding states with illegals to vote for them, and outright implementing coups against duly elected non-Democrats was their last hope. Those failed.

    2. Guess what – there are going to be “electoral changes” one way or another, immigration or not, because people are born and people die.

      People are not programmed robots pre-destined to vote one way or another. The only way the spirit of liberty can survive is if its advocates persuade others to support liberty.

      If you can’t support new immigrants, who WANT to be here and have deliberately chosen to be here, to support the blessings of liberty in this country, what hope do you think you will have of persuading new native-born citizens, who had no choice in the matter of being here or not and may even take much of what we have for granted, of being strong defenders of liberty?

      Trying to use demographics to impose electoral change is a fool’s errand and doomed to fail.

      1. “If you can’t support new immigrants…”

        er that should be

        If you can’t PERSUADE new immigrants…”

      2. “People are not programmed robots”

        So, you’re not a person?
        I can agree with that

      3. you need to look up the term “non sequitur”, bro..it will help you in your life

      4. This is especially stupid even for you.

        It’s hardly a coincidence that California became as deep blue as it did.

        1. Texas has a larger percentage of Hispanics than California does.

          Why isn’t Texas a deep-blue state just like California is?

          Perhaps the reason is more complex than just “brown people vote for Team Blue”.

          1. nobody stated your last sentence, dullard

          2. It was a deep blue state for the first nine and a half decades of the twentieth century.

      5. “If you like your country, you can’t keep it.”

        “If you can’t support new immigrants, who WANT to be here and have deliberately chosen to be here, to support the blessings of liberty in this country, what hope do you think you will have of persuading new native-born citizens, who had no choice in the matter of being here or not and may even take much of what we have for granted, of being strong defenders of liberty?”

        Wanting the security and prosperity of America is not the same thing as wanting the security, prosperity, *and* liberty of America. The 1st and 2nd amendments are simply outliers in the world.

        As pointed out many times to racebaiterjeff, PEW data clearly shows that immigrants generally favor expanding government more than Americans, and do so for generations after coming to America.

        The *facts* are that recent immigrant waves simply *don’t* support the blessings of liberty as much as Americans do.

        Import Not Americans, become Not America.

        “Trying to use demographics to impose electoral change is a fool’s errand and doomed to fail.”

        It’s been working great for the Dems. Without the 1965 immigration overhaul, they probably don’t win a Presidency after Carter.

        But cognitive dissonance means being able to blithely dismiss reality and still mistakenly believe that you’re being rational.

        1. Once again you don’t answer the question.

          What is your strategy to convince new NATIVE-BORN citizens about the value of liberty? If you can’t persuade immigrants, what makes you think you can persuade the native-born?

          The *facts* are that recent immigrant waves simply *don’t* support the blessings of liberty as much as Americans do.

          AMERICANS don’t support the blessings of liberty as much as you think that they do.

          Here is another recent poll:

          https://www.people-press.org/2019/04/11/little-public-support-for-reductions-in-federal-spending/

          These poll results show that there wasn’t a majority who wanted to cut spending in ANY category of the federal budget. This is a poll of ALL Americans, not just immigrants.

          You have created this false narrative that native-born Americans are these rugged defenders of liberty while immigrants are a bunch of socialists wanting handouts, and that Real Muricans have to keep those socialists out if they want to keep their liberty. The reality is more complicated. MOST Americans want more government handouts. The socialism is coming from inside the house country.

          So your crusade to restrict immigration in order to “stop socialism” sure sounds like a lost cause to me. Instead it sounds like you’re scapegoating foreigners for the problems that the native-born are causing.

          So perhaps a better strategy is to stop scapegoating foreigners, stop treating them as if they are unwelcome here and that they are a burden and that they are parasites and that they can never be “authentically American”, perhaps a better strategy is to, you know, try to actually PERSUADE people, BOTH immigrants AND native-born, on why liberty matters and why they ought to support liberty. If you can’t do that, then it doesn’t matter how many walls you build at the border, you’re going to lose anyway.

  31. so what do YOU do with the reliable information that th vast majority of measles cases recently have occurred in children that WERE vaccinated? ANd the strain involved was, in every case I read about, exacty the same strain as what was used in the vaccine the child received.

    Hunh????

    4-500 deaths per year? How many of those were amongst individuals with high OTHER risk factors? Most, from what I’ve read,

    and what to YOU do with the far too many cases reported where a child is vaccinated and within a very short time begins to show severe indications of autism and other such neuro/cranial defects, or outright DIES, like the six year old daughter of a friend of mine?
    and what do YOU do about the extremely high correlation between Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and similar chronic wasting diseases and the two metals aluminium and mercury in the brain, in very high levels, with no known exposure to either other than the vaccines? My Father died of Parkinson’s, and he had gotten the annual flu and shingles vaccines for decades.. they were “free” as part of his company’s health plan. Thanks all the same, we’d all a lot rather have Dad around with us yet and have had him endure a few bouts of flue and/or shingles. He was always a strong healthy guy…..

    when the doc asks if my vaccines are current, I tell him “yes, thanks for asking”. I’ve never taken vaccines for either of those, don’t intend to, and DO NOT get the flu, ever, and don’t even know what “shingles” is, so I guess I’ve never had that either.

    Maybe its the mandated everyone gets poked meme that is the bad idea here…..

    1. Shhh…they don’t want to hear this.

    2. Tionico
      July.2.2019 at 8:33 pm
      “so what do YOU do with the reliable information that th vast majority of measles cases recently have occurred in children that WERE vaccinated?”

      We call you on your bullshit.

  32. Look at the bright side. Women in Ireland recently got rid of a constitutional amendment robbing them of individual rights to please superstitious pederasts. Loser ideologies simply screech louder. Numerically, mystical hatreds are withering like socialist economies and nationalsocialist Amendment proposals.

  33. “We should know better by now.”?? Why? Because “It’s only logical?” Because we learned the hard way, and that should be enough for all time? Millennia of history show every society making the same deadly fundamental mistakes, over and over, e.g., worshipping gods and force, sacrificing their reason and experience to superstition.
    What could explain this? Perhaps our species needs to learn how to live, not just stay alive, what makes life as a human optimal.
    I submit that begins with every individual learning how to think. Where have you heard that taught before? Every school I know of teaches the opposite, e.g., obedience to authority, memorization of rituals and traditions for “socialization” as if this were an undeniable “common good” that superseded individual good. Even to discuss the possibility that the individual’s life might be sacred and lead to the common good makes one a pariah, a monster. But I digress. I issue is to teach or not to teach, to teach how to think, or to indoctrinate, to give one the tools to learn for a lifetime, or to cripple the cognitive process. Is that recognized as the first priority in preparing youth for life? Where? What schools teach it?
    Perhaps that is the lesson our dismal record of war, poverty, and inhumanity teach us.

    1. Ah, I see: your solution to collectivism is to use collectivist schools to indoctrinate children into liberty!

    2. please cite specific examples and not just libertarian vacuous speak

  34. I’m not seeing any problem. Let the morons who believe in invisible friends and who dont accept science suffer and die from disease – more room for the rest of us, and we dont have to listen to as many idiots. No downside IMO.

    1. like the free market?

  35. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $30h – $72h…how? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

    VIST THIS SITE RIGHT HERE>>=====>>>> http://Www.Geosalary.com

  36. Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out whaat i do…..

    click here =====►► http://www.Theprocoin.com

  37. Hey. here’s a bad idea that Reason could address.

    A member of the US Congress recently stated that people making fun of members of Congress “should be prosecuted.”

    Do I even need to suggest the response if Trump had sad that?

    Why isn’t Reason jumping all over this one? Soft bigotry of low expectations?

  38. so per the title of this article we can infer Reason subscriptions are on the rise?

  39. speaking of communicable diseases, when did this joint become infected with Trumptards and fauxbertarians like byebyeDavis, LC1789, and LastoftheShitferbrains?
    Bunch of fucking flyover nitwits and hayseeds.

  40. […] be hard to contain once they get going,” notes Reason managing editor Stephanie Slade in the most recent edition of the magazine. The notion of “benign nationalism,” […]

  41. […] be hard to contain once they get going,” notes Reason managing editor Stephanie Slade in the most recent edition of the magazine. The notion of “benign nationalism,” […]

  42. Measles… That’s mostly back because of all the 3rd world people we’ve allowed into the country. Don’t try to deny otherwise, because you cannot. It was GONE from here. Others brought it back.

    Socialism is gay. And lame. And fucks up the economy. This is known.

    As for nationalism…

    “Yes, much of the burden would fall on foreign citizens whose livelihoods depend on exchange with the world’s largest economy or whose hopes and dreams for their children’s future involve starting new lives here. ”

    So what? Who cares? Does my life exist to benefit stupid fucking foreigners lives or something? Is my blood, sweat, and toil owed to them above my own well being? No. So fuck off. They can build up their own countries, as my ancestors built up mine. I don’t think massive restrictionist measures are a good thing… But nationalism more broadly, with sane immigration rules, and throwing our weight around to get reasonable concessions in trade deals is unreasonable. Anybody who does is a retard and a cuck.

Please to post comments