Populism

The Terrifying Rise of Authoritarian Populism

Envy and resentment are driving collectivist impulses around the world.

|

Governments described as populist are now in power in Poland, Hungary, Mexico, and Turkey. Italy and Greece are governed by multiparty populist coalitions, while populists of the left or right are partners in coalition governments in seven other European Union countries. Venezuela is in free fall thanks to the confiscationist policies of a populist government. Brazil has an outspoken populist president. And the ongoing Trumpist takeover of the Republican Party isn't just a populist spectacle in itself; it has also helped fuel a surge of left-wing populism among the Democrats. Those movements espouse a variety of programs across a wide range of political landscapes. What do they have in common?

Historians and political scientists have argued for decades about what exactly populism is, and they haven't always come to the same conclusions. The political theorist Isaiah Berlin warned in 1967 that "a single formula to cover all populisms everywhere will not be very helpful. The more embracing the formula, the less descriptive. The more richly descriptive the formula, the more it will exclude." Nonetheless, Berlin identified a core populist idea: the notion that an authentic "true people" have been "damaged by an elite, whether economic, political, or racial, some kind of secret or open enemy."

The exact nature of that enemy—"foreign or native, ethnic or social"—doesn't matter, Berlin adds. What fuels populist politics is that concept of the people battling the elite.

The Princeton political scientist Jan-Werner Müller proposes another characteristic: "In addition to being antielitist, populists are always antipluralist," he argues in 2016's What Is Populism? (University of Pennsylvania Press). "Populists claim that they, and they alone, represent the people." In that formulation, the key to understanding populism is that "the people" does not include all the people. It excludes "the enemies of the people," who may be specified in various ways: foreigners, the press, minorities, financiers, the "1 percent," or others seen as not being "us."

Donald Trump casually expressed that concept while running for president, declaring: "The only important thing is the unification of the people, because the other people don't mean anything." During the Brexit campaign, Nigel Farage, then-leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party, predicted "a victory for real people." Apparently, those who voted against Brexit didn't just lose; they weren't real people to begin with.

Not every formulation of populism looks like that. The historian Walter Nugent, for example, argued in 1963's The Tolerant Populists that America's historical Populist Party was no more anti-pluralist than its opponents. In Populism's Power, released the same year as Müller's book, the Wellesley political scientist Laura Grattan offered a definition of populism that has room for pluralist, inclusive movements. But it is the Berlin-Müller brand of populism that is currently surging in Ankara, Budapest, and Washington, threatening individual liberty, free markets, the rule of law, constitutionalism, the free press, and liberal democracy.

The policies promoted by those governments vary, but they reject two related ideas. One is pluralism, the idea that people are variegated, with different interests and values that need to be negotiated through democratic political processes. The other is liberalism—not in the narrow American sense of the political center-left, but the broader belief that individuals have rights and the state's power should be limited to protect those rights.

Populists can be "of the left," but they need not be motivated by Marxian ideas of class conflict or central planning. They can be "of the right," but they are distinctly different from old-school reactionaries who yearn for a lost world of ordered hierarchies; if anything, they tend to dissolve old-fashioned classes and social orders into the undifferentiated mass of The People. Or they can reject the left/right spectrum altogether. As the French populist leader Marine Le Pen put it in 2015, "Now the split isn't between the left and the right but between the globalists and the patriots."

Populists frequently believe that the true will of the authentic people is focused in one leader. Hugo Chávez, Venezuela's late populist president, put it bluntly: "Chávez is no longer me! Chávez is a people! Chávez—we are millions. You are also Chávez! Venezuelan woman, you are also Chávez! Young Venezuelan, you are Chávez! Venezuelan child, you are Chávez! Venezuelan soldier, you are Chávez! Fisherman, farmer, peasant, merchant! Because Chávez is not me. Chávez is a people!" Turkey's leader, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, once responded to a lone opposition voice by thundering, "We are the people! Who are you?" And then there's Donald Trump's less dramatic declaration that "I am your voice!"

Populists may seek power by democratic means, but that does not make them liberal. They often campaign against limits on the power of the people, especially independent judiciaries and other checks on the executive. Populists can be socialist or nationalist or both, they can be "pro-business" (crony capitalist) or "pro-labor" (crony unionist), but they share the idea that society must be put under some sort of control, exercised by a leader or a party that represents the true people and is fighting against their enemies.

 

The Children of Carl Schmitt

Antagonism, thus, is foundational to the populist mentality. And the central theorist of antagonism was Carl Schmitt, a German philosopher of the Nazi era—he is sometimes called the "crown jurist of the Third Reich"—who has had a strong influence on both the hard left and the hard right.

In The Concept of the Political (1932), a relentless critique of classical liberalism and constitutional democracy, Schmitt sought to displace the ideal of voluntary cooperation with the idea of conflict. The "specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced," Schmitt wrote, "is that between friend and enemy." The contemporary theorists who have taken this notion up include the left-wing populist Chantal Mouffe and her husband, Ernesto Laclau, author of On Populist Reason (2005).

Laclau, whose ideas have influenced populist governments in Greece and Argentina and populist opposition movements across Latin America and Europe, applies Schmittian thinking directly. Indeed, he goes further than Schmitt, treating enmity per se as the very principle of power. Where Schmitt, a virulent anti-Semite, identified the Jews as the perpetual enemy, Laclau's hostility can be directed against anyone.

For Laclau, a populist movement is a collection of otherwise unrelated unmet "demands" aggregated by manipulative populist leaders. The demands are all different, but they are unified in a movement that constitutes "the people." The designation of "the enemy of the people" is a strategic matter, a means of assembling a coalition powerful enough to be united under a leader for the purpose of seizing state power.

The final and most toxic ingredient is "affective investment"—that is, emotional engagement. What unites the otherwise disparate and inchoate demands, Laclau says, is the group's adoration of the leader and hatred of the enemy.

Íñigo Errejón, a leader of the leftist Podemos populist party in Spain and an enthusiastic defender of Venezuela's regime, builds his populism explicitly on the idea that collectivities are created by positing an enemy against which the people must struggle. In his case, the enemy is "the casta, the privileged." When asked who the casta are, Errejón responded: "The term's mobilizing power comes precisely from its lack of definition. It's like asking: Who's the oligarchy? Who's the people? They are statistically undefinable. I think these are the poles with greatest performative capacity."

Mouffe described the choice of target as essential to building the "sort of people we want to build." By identifying The Enemy, The People is constructed.

 

It's Not the Economy, Stupid

The old standby explanation of populism is that it is a predictable response to economic oppression. Thus, the socialist pundit John Judis argues in 2016's The Populist Explosion: How the Great Recession Transformed American and European Politics that populism rose in response to "the skewed distribution of jobs and income that neoliberal economics had created over the prior decades."

Yet populists have surged in popularity or come to power in countries with very dissimilar economic conditions, including some with low unemployment and relatively high economic growth. Nor is the rise of populism a matter of age, with older people supporting right-wing nationalist populists and younger people supporting liberal cosmopolitanism: Plenty of young people have been voting for populist parties and candidates. Nor is the populist vote explained robustly by income levels.

The British political scientists Roger Eatwell and Matthew Goodwin point out in their 2018 book National Populism: The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy (Pelican) that a common driver in "national populism" is not falling wages but "relative deprivation—a sense that the wider group, whether white Americans or native Brits, is being left behind relative to others in society, while culturally liberal politicians, media and celebrities devote far more attention and status to immigrants, ethnic minorities and other newcomers." Rapid change in the status of groups, notably through immigration, causes many people to experience relative downward mobility and to feel that the status of their group is threatened. When Britain voted to withdraw from the European Union, Eatwell and Goodwin write, polling data showed Remainers "talking endlessly about economic risks while Leavers were chiefly concerned about perceived threats to their identity and national groups." (Brexit is a complex question, of course, and some classical liberals supported it because they feared an unaccountable E.U. bureaucracy. But the movement for Brexit was driven far more by populist concerns than by liberal ones.)

In the U.S., a deciding factor in Trump's victory was the estimated 9 percent of voters who cast ballots for Obama in 2012 and then switched to Trump, according to survey data analyzed by George Washington University political scientist John Sides. Among white Obama voters who had not been to college, the share who later voted for Trump was a whopping 22 percent. As that past support for Obama suggests, their votes for Trump can't be reduced to a simple story of racial backlash. Nor was it a simple matter of economics: For the most part, those voters' incomes and living standards are higher than those of their parents.

But a common motivation for their support for Trump seems to be insecurity about their social status. A 2016 Brookings Institution survey showed that 66 percent of non-college-schooled American whites "agree that discrimination against whites is as big a problem today as discrimination against blacks and other minorities." Anxiety about status—in this case a perception of an inversion of the status quo—seems to be a major factor, certainly much bigger than ideological racism. As political scientist Karen Stenner argued based on extensive data in her 2005 book The Authoritarian Dynamic, threats to "collective rather than individual conditions" trigger authoritarian "groupiness," i.e., populism.

Here's where classical liberals need to do some serious thinking. A mainstay of arguments for free markets is that when people's incomes rise at different rates, the important thing is that they're all rising. Even most left-wing egalitarians accept some inequality, as long as it's necessary for the poor to become less poor. The philosopher John Rawls argued in A Theory of Justice, for instance, that inequalities can be just if they are to the "greatest benefit of the least advantaged," because then, even the least well off could not complain. But human beings are concerned about more than how well they're doing relative to how well they did in the past. They also care about how well they're doing compared to others. They care about hierarchies and social status.

Relative status is quite different from absolute well-being. Libertarians have for many years celebrated the rise in status of women, racial minorities, immigrants, openly gay people, and others who had for very long periods of time suffered from low social status. Well, when it comes to relative social status, if some rose, others had to fall. And who perceived themselves as falling? White men without college degrees.

It isn't just onetime outsiders rising in comparative status. As Charles Murray lays out in his 2012 book Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960–2010, a decline in our collective emphasis on certain traditional virtues—hard work, marriage, and the like—has opened a gulf between college-schooled elites and high-schooled nonelites. The resentment felt by one side of the divide is, unfortunately, often matched by the arrogance and condescension shown by the other, which merely accentuates the resentment.

Similar divisions are happening in other countries as well, and they seem to be a major driver of populist sentiment. Pew Research Center surveys conducted in 2017 in 15 countries identified ethnocentrism and perceptions of national decline as characteristic of populist voters. In Germany, for example, 44 percent of the populist Alternative for Germany (AfD) party's supporters say that life is worse than it was 50 years ago for people like them, compared to only 16 percent of other Germans. While data vary across countries and, as Berlin pointed out in 1967, no one factor can explain all populist movements, such fears of national decline and group status are common, especially in Europe and the U.S. The most important driver in Europe and the U.S. seems to be immigration and what Eatwell and Goodwin in National Populism call "hyper ethnic change"—that is, rapid change in the ethnic mix of a society, with multiple ethnicities joining the social order. (Some Americans have experienced feelings of dislocation and threat to their place in society upon seeing that their old Piggly Wiggly store has been replaced by a mercado with Mexican flags. It's not the experience of ethnic pluralism that seems to be the problem but the fear that other ethnicities will eventually displace them.)

The percentage of U.S. residents who were foreign-born reached 13.7 percent in 2017, the highest percentage since 1910, when it was 14.7 percent. Moreover, since the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, which abolished national quotas and favored family reunions, higher percentages of immigrants have been coming from Asia, Africa, Central America, and the Middle East, accentuating ethnic differences with the native-born population.

The Alternative for Germany, which started as a movement against the euro and has morphed into a populist anti-immigrant party, has drawn increasing support from less-schooled voters from the former states of East Germany. Such voters perceive their status as having fallen in recent decades, and they fear immigration far more than do more-schooled voters and those in the Western part of the country, which has seen far more immigration. In fact, the AfD support was strongest in those regions of the East that had seen the least population growth due to migration; people in those places feel that they are being left behind, and they blame immigrants, whom they see more on television than in their neighborhoods.

Similar analyses can be applied to Britain, France, Sweden, and other democracies that have seen surges of populism.

Hyper ethnic change is profoundly unsettling to many people, and it is helping to drive populist political responses. One can dismiss such reactions as irrational or small-minded, but many people feel them nonetheless. Moreover, many people are not satisfied with improvements in their conditions if they perceive others—especially outsiders—as doing even better. Envy and resentment have long been drivers of anti-libertarian movements, and they seem to be back in a big way. The problem is exacerbated by the increase of welfare-state transfer payments and benefits, which outsiders are believed to exploit or threaten.

I fear that we may be entering an age of authoritarian "groupiness" and that the consequences will be terrible for freedom and prosperity. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the rise of far-right and far-left authoritarian populist movements today is more than a little reminiscent of Europe in the 1930s.

 

The Libertarian Response

To take on such populist ideas, we must start by understanding them. If fear regarding immigration trends is driving a larger fear of liberal democratic capitalism, one response is to ensure that immigration procedures are (accurately) perceived as orderly rather than as invasive. Attitudes toward both the Syrian refugees fleeing a catastrophic war and the current situation on the United States' southern border have arguably been shaped for the worse by a failure to fashion more systematic and orderly solutions, entailing a right to work legally, for example.

The reason so many people choose to cross into the U.S. illegally, and in risky ways, is that it's extraordinarily difficult to obtain a visa at an American consulate and travel by bus or car through a legal port of entry. Those who enter without permission or overstay their visas are less likely to go home, as was previously common, when they are not sure they'll be able to return to work again in the future. A functioning and efficient guest worker program—one that allows people to easily take temporary jobs in the United States and then return home to their families with the wealth they've rightfully acquired—could help calm the worries of American citizens who balk at the idea that throngs of foreigners are forcing their way across the border.

But is there anything libertarians, the vast majority of whom remain outside the halls of power where immigration policy is set, can do?

One idea is to push back against the idea that trade is a zero-sum game. Your benefit need not come at my expense. What is good for Germany can be good for France, if Germans and Frenchmen trade goods and services rather than bullets and bombs. Immigrants who arrive to work enrich the people among whom they work. Negative-sum games can be transformed into positive-sum games by establishing the right institutions: property, contract, and voluntary trade. Trade has improved the well-being of Americans, of Germans, of Kenyans, of everyone.

Libertarians also need to take a hard look at our own rhetoric. Trying to divide humanity into taxpayers and tax eaters, as if there were some easy way in a modern society to distinguish the two groups neatly and unambiguously, feeds into populist hatred and rage. By all means cut subsidies, but demonizing the recipients as enemies of the people, as mere parasites, contributes to a climate of resentment, hatred, revenge, and conflict that undermines the framework for peaceful, voluntary cooperation on which liberty rests.

Thinking about the world in terms of friends vs. enemies channels energy into collectivism and demagoguery. To stop authoritarian populism, it's important not to promote the mentality of enmity that enables it.

Advertisement

NEXT: "Once the Cat Is Out of the Bag, the Ball Game Is Over."

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

  1. We might also want to encourage the US and the UK to switch from a two-partyish system to proportional representation. Authoritarians are much less dangerous when 20% of the vote gives you a small slice of the legislature then when it’s enough to put you in the White House.

    1. That works worse. You end up with a government run by people supported by a fifth to a quarter of the electorate. Effectively representing almost no one.

      That isn’t better. Instead, remove the progressives, that will fix most of our problems. As they really are to blame.

      1. Enjoy the last gasps of the superstitious slack-jaws, downscale bigots, half-educated right-wing malcontents. The next chapter of the culture war will resemble the most recent 50 or 60 years — America’s betters crushing the deplorable preferences of backwater conservatives.

        1. Get ready for the landfill. As I’m sure you will be too stupid to leave when ordered to.

        2. Are you promising us a Superior Future, Rev?

        3. Feminism and Islam together at last.

          Pluralism at its finest.

      2. So much of this article denies there is any problem at all and that those who voted for Trump are just disgruntled Americans left out of the system. Silly people, being left out. All populism is is a name. Referred mainly in the media (and by one person- Bannon only), and it mostly used derogatorily and never associated with the will of the people. This populism is supposed to have a target of their rage, In American its Immigration, Come on now, there was more rage for the media and experts, who brought us into how many wars, and how many other blunders. Very few things they said would happen did. I can’t really call them experts and I don’t because they are writers with a cause and propagandists writing for their masters. Very few Hitchens out writing anymore. and even when he was writing there were few that did not just write the party or mag, or newspaper line. The immigration was a chant – another thing to rally around to build the wall. Those mostly enraged about the wall not being completed are those who want a white America. Hell it’s needed. but even when built is not going to make America white again if it ever was. Analyzing Trump voters seems to also be something used to define them to whittle at it while those who lost fail to notice their errors. The truth is those who voted for Trump where from all over the spectrum. Now it’s 86 to 87 percent of the party.
        Well most likely it’s not far right or Far left but two different solutions to the same problems. The same problems that have existed for 25 or 30 years, whether it’s Trade, Immigration, Drugs or Crime, and both sides see the parties are not solving any. The progressives resemble those who just want to blow it all up, ( Russia 1914) which is why there is no outrage about Anti-fa. Even Adams clearly pointed “In politics the middle way is none at all.” – John Adams. He also stated, “One useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three is a Congress.” Those who voted for Trump want the Government to follow the constitution, Laws to be equal and just, and to be enforced. And most of all for the Government to solve some of the problems that have been going on for 30 years so that we can move on to some others, and make America the what it is supposed to be.

        Whether Libertarians were a possible solution once. It’s not now, and now those who were the icons are spokespeople for gold and silver sales. Since these Libertarians are also fighting Trump, Koch is one of the biggest, are now supporting Democrat candidates as none of the Republican want to push Koch’s agenda in the open. we begin to see the it really was not what they said it was. What is really known is it’s a Racket which includes all three parties in a shell game to persuade voters to vote against their very interests. Well. I think it is. Whether it’s the Diehard Rhino, or craze Dem, or the silent Libertarian it’s all about dividing the voters. Dividing America. Trump may not be the implement I would have dreamt for. He is however. one that checked most of the boxes, and the only one who took a very different approach.

        What we do have is rigged systems that have threw too many people out of the conspiracy. “Things look different when you are on the inside.” Ask a union worker who is working and one who isn’t about his thoughts.
        Last we have two parties because of districting. The party heads meet and slice up the states to get the most safe districts possible. This way they have more in the coffers for areas they really need to fight and it keeps out any independents that could compete. They even blame each other for that.

        Hell. Lobbyists are a major problem that has been being also yapped about for 30 years, with no solutions. The laws passed seem to only make the situation worse.

        The libertarian movement is gone because like the other parties it has not delivered the promises of our nation and what it stands for.

        Sorry. this was a long comment, and thanks to any that read it, if any but when I read just a bunch of meandering diatribes that included all the talking points, from almost every side but Trumps and not a ounce of substance all woven is a tale of malarkey, I have to cover some points.

      3. A parliamentary system is required to form coalitions. Meaning you have to get along. To some people this is a horrific idea. But when no single party can get 51% it’s the only way it can work.

        Trump did not get 51% of the vote. He won because of an Electoral College. A parliamentary system is another way to to what the Electoral college does: Ensure that there is enough support that a government can govern.

        1. The Electoral College addresses the City Mouse/Country Mouse problem directly. A Parliamentary system does not. City Mice always outnumber Country Mice. City Mice generally look down on Country Mice as stupid or provincial. City Mice die without the food and goods from Country Mice. Country Mice must have a veto for the city and country combined to long survive. Swiss strong-canton system and the Electoral college are two examples. The “country” states always outnumber the “city” states. The “country” counties always outnumber the “city” counties. Our founders understood this.

          1. A Parliamentary system does not.

            Sure it does. The pseudo-conservative retards will still have the co-opted GOP. They just won’t be able to get anything done (nor will the progressives), which sounds amazing.

          2. you got that completely backwards, its the City that feeds the Country, not the other way around. Nobody needs most of what the “country” produces, meaning loads of GMO soybeans, corn, wheat and other animal fodder. besides all the junk food. Take away the CFO (“concentrated feeding operations”) animal torture centers and killing floors, and your whole world collapses. The whole point is that the margins and backwaters of America are shitty places no one wants to be in and add nothing to the commonwealth. It is the truest of “welfare ghettos”, the leftover ‘red state’ cesspool areas.

            DRAIN THE SWAMP

            1. LOL WUT?

              Everything that is done in cities is predicated on “the country” making the world go round. We’ve outsourced a lot of the real work to slave labor in China, but without those “country people” getting the work done the city folk would be fucked too. Everything that sustains a society comes from doing REAL work. Bankers, lawyers, the media, etc can all only exist because somebody else is feeding them, clothing them, mining/harvesting the materials that their house is made with, manufacturing their computer etc.

              Society is built up like a pyramid, and real work is the foundational level, not dickwads in skyscrapers trading stocks or whatever. In a functional society both serve a purpose, but one is predicated on the other existing.

      4. Yes, just “remove” democratically elected representatives. That will keep the country from being authoritarian.

    2. Really hope you never discover the proportional wins in government in say…. 1930s Germany.

      1. I think Herr Snider already knows that.

    3. This is completely illogical from start-to-finish.

      First – the opposite of ‘two-party’ is not ‘proportional representation’. The opposite of proportional representation is first-past-the-post or single-member districts (SMD). It is dishonest to assert that proprep is the only way to ‘fix’ the stranglehold of a two-party system OR to propose it as a great floor wax too authoritarian-resistant system.

      Second, the UK does have SMD – like the US and 80 or so countries. It also has 9 parties and 15 independent MP’s. So it ain’t two-party either. And there is ZERO threat of some authoritarian PM there. Keerist – you think the cluster$%^# of Brexit and Theresa May resembles ‘authoritarian’???

      Third – two-party is a uniquely American problem. Duverger’s Law is a dead parrot. So if fixing two-party stranglehold is your goal (and I’d agree with that); then the solutions lie within the uniqueness here – massive districts (too small a legislature) that also put a premium on wholesale/money politics (eg US has 725,000 peeps/rep v UK with 85,000/rep) – and structural impediments to ballot access which are viewed as violations of basic civil rights under international law everywhere else and by treaties we ourselves have signed.

      1. And there is ZERO threat of some authoritarian PM there.

        I have to disagree there. One of the most authoritarian PM’s in a long time is about to be kicked out – for incompetence, not being too authoritarian – and there’s a decent chance for Jeremy Corbyn to take that seat.

        And the UK has become extremely authoritarian over the course of this century.

        Ironically though – *not* because of ‘populists’ but because of the policies rammed into place against the population’s will by ‘elitists’.

        Its almost as if its not populism that is the problem but people seeking ever-more power inside institutions that are willing to grant it to them.

        1. well maybe. But at some point an authoritarian has to be competent to be considered authoritarian. Otherwise, every crazy person standing on the street yelling at the clouds to be quiet could be considered authoritarian.

      2. In California we have a problem with not enough legislators for the populace. I’ve been in the capital. It’s way too small. The seats are so crowded on the Assembly floor its crazy. Yet they need twice the assemblymen to support the population.

        One solution that has been proposed, is get beyond the idea of a building, and have the legislators meet and vote online. We have the technology. It’s cheap. And we can make it secure and the votes verifiable. The only problem is the ineptitude of the state IT department. But that’s fixable.

      3. There needs to be 100 States in America, not just 50.

        The whole system was designed to work with the runner up taking second place. Hillary Clinton is rightfully the Vice President of the United States. The later “tweaking” is now the problem.

        Super Majority. 70% to get seated or nobody gets seated. Same thing with the legislature: 3/4 of the House, 2/3 of the Senate or no bill.

    4. Or just apply the NAP to government.

    5. The immigration fear as this article refers is more than a bunch of un-educated people feeling their jobs are being taken away. The immigration situation has been going on for 25 years or more, and beside the loss of jobs which hits more the least skilled workers and the youth of the nation. Milton Freedman stated you could have all the immigrants you want either legal or illegal provided they do not get welfare from the Government. The fact is welfare has become inset in society from water bills, to electrical bills, to food stamps and housing. The real wages are not really real when the rest is being covered by those who can pay. Once you reach the bottom rung of middle class you begin the effects. Bush cut budgets of the Fed Government on Welfare, and taxes, and the costs appeared in the state and local government.

      1. The immigration fear as this article refers is more than a bunch of un-educated people feeling their jobs are being taken away.

        I see no evidence that what you say is true. Add in “but muh welfare moneys” and your post is yet another example of the same.

        1. I’m a high income person who doesn’t like paying for illiterate third worlders who don’t pay enough in taxes to support their use of services… So do I not exist in your world?

          I also don’t like how they SHIT ON our history, don’t care about rights I hold dear, and 1000 other things. There are A LOT of reasons intelligent people don’t like immigration.

  2. But is there anything libertarians, the vast majority of whom remain outside the halls of power where immigration policy is set, can do?

    Make emotion- and hyperbole-free arguments for overhauling our immigration system in the context of benefiting the United States and its people, as the author goes on to hint at? No. I think libertarians need to go hard at the woke angle, framing the current president as a uniquely populist threat to libertarian ideals.

    1. “benefiting the United States and its people”

      Another racist populist expecting the US government to act in the interests of Americans.

      #ForeignersFirst

      1. The immigration policy that would most benefit the United States and its people is to have no central policy trying to arbitrarily restrict who comes and goes.

        That way, each individual is free to associate with whatever foreigner that they choose.

        1. Jeff once again ignores the welfare state and the costs brought upon local systems (especially education and healthcare) in his quest to import uneducated migrants in the hope he wont be the dumbest person in the room.

          1. import uneducated migrants

            Why do you refer to migrants as if they are cargo being shipped across borders?

            1. Why do you ignore his point?

              1. That’s his shtick. He asks the same questions over and over, in every thread about immigration, as if these points had not been explained to him repeatedly.

                1. It’s my pleasure to continually point out to you why you are wrong.

                  1. You do that by ignoring what people say? What are you, some kind of performance artist?

                    1. Yes.

                      Moral preeners gonna preen.

                    2. Pedo Jeffy is never right, and he loves kiddie porn.

                  2. You never point out WHY you think anyone is wrong. You just ignore what is said and repeat yourself.

                  3. It’s my pleasure to continually point out to you why you are wrong.

                    Yeah? When exactly are you going to start, you useless sack of monkey spunk?

              2. “Why do you ignore his point?”

                Because he can’t argue the points. So it’s red herring after red herring.

            2. In many cases, they ARE cargo. Human trafficking across borders is a huge and very profitable business.

              1. “In many cases”

                Okay, so how about the rest? Jesse didn’t make a distinction between migrants traveling freely, and migrants who have been kidnapped.

                Furthermore I see the “import immigrants” language used quite often, to refer to migrants of all types, not just those who have been trafficked.

                Do you find it troublesome at all to refer to migrants *broadly* as if they were cargo? Would you regard this rhetoric as a type of dehumanization tactic against an out-group?

                1. Do you find it troublesome at all to refer to migrants *broadly* as if they were cargo?

                  YOU are the one who did that, and, no, I’m not troubled by it, because you’re an idiot I don’t take seriously.

                  Would you regard this rhetoric as a type of dehumanization tactic against an out-group?

                  I regard your rhetoric as a sophomoric attempt to ascribe a motive of bigotry to anyone who wants sensible and prudent restrictions on immigration.

                  1. Why do you think the “importation” rhetoric is used to describe migration? Migrants *broadly* are not cargo and should not be analogized as such. They are individuals with their own free agency to decide where to go. They’re not idiots, they’re not robots, they’re not cargo, they’re people.

                    1. Aw fuck, Jeff is doing that “argue by retarded speculation” thing you already dinged him for.

                    2. Me – “All you see to do is assume literally the worst case motve then rant like an idiot about it.

                      It’s so fucking tiresome to watch you. You dismiss everyone at some point because you claim they are racist or a bigot. No one is allowed to have motives other than that, if they disagree with you. You’re a fucking clown.”

                      Jeff -” Why do you think the “importation” rhetoric is used to describe migration? Migrants *broadly* are not cargo and should not be analogized as such. They are individuals with their own free agency to decide where to go. They’re not idiots, they’re not robots, they’re not cargo, they’re people.”

                      It’s like you HAVE to prove me right.

                      Jesus christ, are you ACTUALLY fucking whining because people compare the CARGO OF COYOTES to other TYPES OF CARGO?

                      Because while it is an analogy, they ARE ALSO VERY OFTEN THE CARGO of human smugglers you ridiculous moron.

                      God dammit did you actually write a post thinking to chastise people you fucking idiot?

                2. “Would you regard this rhetoric as a type of dehumanization tactic against an out-group?”

                  No you dumb fuck. It’s how people speak when illegal immigrants regularly pack themselves in 10 to a trunk.

                  All you see to do is assume literally the worst case motve then rant like an idiot about it.

                  It’s so fucking tiresome to watch you. You dismiss everyone at some point because you claim they are racist or a bigot. No one is allowed to have motives other than that, if they disagree with you. You’re a fucking clown.

                  1. It’s how people speak when illegal immigrants regularly pack themselves in 10 to a trunk.

                    It’s how you and your pals speak, sure. Not everyone refers to migrants as if they were cargo.

                    All you see to do is assume literally the worst case motve then rant like an idiot about it.

                    Okay, so what’s the benign motive for comparing people to cargo?

                    1. “Not everyone refers to migrants as if they were cargo.”

                      THEY ARE ACTING LIKE CARGO YOU STUPID ASSHOLE.

                      And NO ONE SAID EVERYONE.

                      Jesus fucking christ…

                      “Okay, so what’s the benign motive for comparing people to cargo?”

                      Are you fucking retarded?

                      It’s how people speak when illegal immigrants regularly pack themselves in 10 to a trunk.

                      LIKE CARGO.

                      God dammit what he fuck is broken in your idiot mind kid?

                    2. Sorry, Tulpa, but if people referred to “importing” migrants only when they were closely packed in a vehicle, you might have a point. But they don’t. Frequently, many people around here refer to “importing” migrants broadly and generally, regardless of their precise mode of transportation.

                      I think it is a step in attempting to dehumanize migrants, in order to justify harsh treatment against them and to forestall sympathetic regard for their circumstances.

                    3. “Sorry, Tulpa, but if people referred to “importing” migrants only when they were closely packed in a vehicle, you might have a point.”

                      OMFG shut the fuck up, I have a point now.

                      You just have to assume the worst possible motive like I said you ignorant twat.

                    4. “think it is a step in attempting to dehumanize migrants,”

                      WE KNOW YOU STUPIDLY THINK THAT.

                      It’s why you are a fucking joke, you ALWAYS assume motive that impugn your opponents as much as possible.

                    5. you ALWAYS assume motive that impugn your opponents as much as possible.

                      When it comes to immigration? It’s not an assumption.

                    6. “chemjeff radical individualist
                      July.14.2019 at 4:41 pm
                      you ALWAYS assume motive that impugn your opponents as much as possible.

                      When it comes to immigration? It’s not an assumption.”

                      Ladies and gentlemen, you heard it from him, everyone who disagrees with Jeff is probably, undeniably racist and bioted.

                      God you are fucking trash.

                    7. Pedo Jeffy and his semantical bullshit. Obsessing over nomenclature. Stupid child rape enthusiast that he is.

                      If karma is a thing then he will be raped to death by cartel goons here illegally.

        2. no central policy trying to arbitrarily restrict who comes

          No, it shouldn’t be arbitrary. It should attempt to restrict entry to those likely to be of benefit to our country.

          1. It should attempt to restrict entry to those likely to be of benefit to our country.

            Who determines what is “likely to be of benefit to our country”?

            Would that be, say, a central planning bureau?

            1. That would be our democratic republican government, as you know.

              1. Yet we (here, not in general) would all bristle at the thought of our “democratic republican government” deciding how much petroleum production was “likely to be of benefit to our country.” We correctly rail against certificate of need laws in healthcare, which is also precisely that. Why is labor different?

                1. The country doesn’t benefit by increasing its number of dirty barrios.

                2. Because it Is a power assigned to the government in the Constitution?

                3. Why is labor different?

                  Because unneeded labor doesn’t disappear. The Somali immigrant community, for example, continues to experience high unemployment. How many have gone back to Somalia? Approximately zero. An unneeded oil company can go out of business. Unneeded immigrants continue to come here whether the labor market has any use for them or not, and continue to consume food, housing, medical care, and other services, whether or not their economic contributions are needed. If we opened the borders and let anyone come in and stay who was merely able to get here, we would be inundated by a tsunami of newcomers who rightly believe that being useless in America is a better life than their lives in the violent, impoverished shitholes from which they would flee. That massive influx of immigrants would at the least be a very costly impairment to our standard of living and our liberties, and in the worst case could be an existential threat to our country. We simply can’t allow that. No country could, which is why no country on Earth has open borders.

                  1. Well, I think the case of refugees should be distinguished from the case of economic migrants. Most of the Somalis here are refugees and not merely economic migrants. Many Somalis don’t return to Somalia because doing so would literally be risking their lives. The same can’t be said of your typical day laborer from Mexico. Economic migrants have much more freedom to travel wherever the economic opportunities might be.

                    Second, and please correct me if I’m wrong, your argument appears to be the following:

                    “If we permit the exercise of liberty for individuals to associate with each other freely, then that exercise will have negative repercussions, so the liberty of free association must be curtailed.”

                    If that is your argument, can’t you see how it might be problematic if applied to other areas?

                    1. That’s not his argument. You substituted your own phraseology for his to make it about free association even though the association of your mom and her illiterate cabana boy is loaded with externalities as a result of the colossal welfare system that you support 100%.

                      This shit was a lot more fun when you were cytotoxic the teenage moron. Now that it’s 5 years on and you’re a grown ass man operating 10 sock puppets on this board 8-10 hours a day mindlessly regurgitating the same shit you were when Obama was in office it’s just mothafuckin’ sad. You should seriously consider killing yourself, or at least getting fucked.

                    2. But from a liberty perspective (this IS a libertarian comment board, right?), the primary issue IS the freedom of association. YES there are externalities to the exercise of EVERY liberty. Exercise of the right of free speech means that some people will be offended by my speech. That’s an externality. But I do not argue that speech should be censored *by the government* because free speech can sometimes produce externalities.

                      So what Vernon seems to be saying, is that a state of complete open borders would lead to large negative externalities. And I don’t actually disagree with him that there probably will be some negative externalities (we probably disagree on the magnitude though). My problem is with hinging the defense of liberty on a utilitarian argument. Liberty should be defended for its own sake, as an end unto itself. And I suspect that Vernon just fundamentally disagrees with this basic premise. That’s fine. But then because I don’t adopt his utilitarian premise, he claims that I’m “refusing to address his argument”. No, I’m not adopting his premise. That’s different.

                    3. “from a liberty perspective (this IS a libertarian comment board, right?), the primary issue IS the freedom of association.”

                      TO YOU.

                      YOU DON’T GET TO DEMAND THAT OF ANYONE ELSE, NOR PRETEND IT IS THE CASE FOR ANYONE. YOU SPEAK FOR YOU. JUST YOU.

                      AND WHEN ANYONE DISAGREES WITH YOU, YOU ASSUME THE WORST POSSIBLE MOTIVE IN THEIR PART. YOU ADMIT AS MUCH.

                      ” “chemjeff radical individualist
                      July.14.2019 at 4:41 pm
                      you ALWAYS assume motive that impugn your opponents as much as possible.

                      When it comes to immigration? It’s not an assumption.””

                      What the fuck is wrong with you?

                    4. “So what Vernon seems to be saying”

                      OMFG YOU’RE DOING IT AGAIN HOW ARE YOU SO COMPLETELY UNTEACHABLE.

                    5. Well, I think the case of refugees should be distinguished from the case of economic migrants.

                      In order to do that, we need to have controlled borders and restricted entry. The “refugee” classification is a tool of immigration control. If we had open borders, there would no longer be any distinguishing of refugees.

                      Most of the Somalis here are refugees and not merely economic migrants.

                      Because we have controls on entry to our country. With open borders, I would expect many or most people in the resulting tidal wave of immigration to be coming from bad situations, AKA shitholes, who would be loath to return to said holes regardless of how they faired economically in the US.

                      Many Somalis don’t return to Somalia because doing so would literally be risking their lives.

                      Billions of people live in countries much less safe than the US.

                      The same can’t be said of your typical day laborer from Mexico.

                      Well, duh. Mexico is right next store, and Mexico is one of the nicer shitholes. With open borders, we would be inundated with newcomers from all over the world.

                      Economic migrants have much more freedom to travel wherever the economic opportunities might be.

                      And yet, the impoverished immigrants who come to the US don’t do that. They come and they stay, whether or not they are economically successful here.

                      Second, and please correct me if I’m wrong

                      You’re wrong, as you always are when you put words in my mouth.

                    6. My point about distinguishing between refugees and economic migrants is not merely one about legalistic classification. Refugees and economic migrants have fundamentally different incentives. Trying to classify every migrant as if they have the same incentives as refugees is not fair, IMO.

                      You’re wrong, as you always are when you put words in my mouth.

                      If you think I’m wrong, then let me try again.

                      Your argument is that if we had open borders, then the resulting flood of new migrants would bring overwhelmingly negative consequences. Is that your argument, yes or no?

                      If so, then consider that open borders, in the manner that I am using the term, reflects a protection of the liberty of freedom of association. Do you agree that this is a liberty that we possess?

                      If so, then your argument seems to be that if state should NOT protect the liberty of freedom of association, via open borders, because if the state did that, the negative consequences of such a decision would be enormous. Is that not a fair summary of your argument?

                      So you seem to be making a consequentialist argument, that the protection of liberty should be contingent on the positive benefits that the exercise of that liberty may produce. I personally think that this is a dangerous road for anyone seriously committed to the cause of liberty to be traveling.

                      But, if any of that is incorrect in my chain of reasoning there, please by all means clarify.

                    7. My point about distinguishing between refugees and economic migrants is blah blah blah

                      You’ve missed that point that the distinction is meaningless in the absence of immigration controls.

                      Your argument is that if we had open borders, then the resulting flood of new migrants would bring overwhelmingly negative consequences.

                      That is one thing that I have stated, yes.

                      open borders, in the manner that I am using the term, reflects a protection of the liberty of freedom of association.

                      No, it doesn’t. One has nothing to do with the other. I don’t give a rat’s ass who you associate with. Are you a high school graduate? Did you to take American History? They must have introduced the concept to you that possessing a right does not necessarily protect any possible manner of exercising that right. I have freedom of speech, but that does not mean the local police can’t tell me to shut up if I’m screaming about philosophy under your bedroom window at 2:00 am. I have freedom of religion, but that does not mean it’s OK for me to slaughter a bull in the city park pavilion an Eid al-adha. I have freedom of the press, but that does not mean I’m allowed to write a news story on the Washington Monument. The government has the authority to place reasonable restrictions on the manner, time, and place for me to exercise many of my rights. You may associate with anyone you wish. Nobody cares. That does not mean you may arrogate the authority to invite anyone in the world to come into our country and remain indefinitely. If you want to hang out with your friend from Guatemala, he can get a visa and visit you. Or you can meet up with him in any country that will grant you entry. You may correspond, chat on the phone, hell, I’ll even support his right to mow your lawn while he’s here. But you may not decide for all of us that he may stay here permanently.

                      Do you agree that this is a liberty that we possess?

                      We have instituted a government to protect the rights of our people. Freedom of association has been argued to be one of those rights, although we have tolerated some infringement of it by civil rights legislation. Our government is instituted to protect OUR rights in OUR country, not the rights of everyone in the world.

                      state should NOT protect the liberty of freedom of association

                      Yes, it should.

                      via open borders

                      No, that’s a separate issue.

                      the negative consequences of such a decision would be enormous.

                      Yes, they would.

                      So you seem to be making a consequentialist argument, that the protection of liberty should be contingent on the positive benefits that the exercise of that liberty may produce.

                      If liberty does not produce positive benefits, why protect it? Is your argument, “protecting liberty is the Right Thing To Do, even if it harms us or kills us.”? Good luck selling it with that argument. Sounds like you don’t really believe that liberty works, but, rather, you have some sort of religious devotion to it. I’m not willing to put our nation in a suicide pact with your faith.

                      I personally think that this is a dangerous road for anyone seriously committed to the cause of liberty to be traveling.

                      I personally think that writing a Book of Absolute Rules That Must Be Followed, and then mindlessly following those rules regardless of obvious and immediate tragic results, is a dangerous road for anyone committed to…anything. We just human. We’re not going to be able to write a list of rules and principles that will dictate the best answer in every situation. We’re not that smart. We can codify reasonable and proven guidelines for decision making, but then we also must use our heads and our senses and make judgements about the best thing to do in real situations.

                4. Labor is different because labor is people.

                  When you import people, you import their culture, and particularly their political culture, with them.

                  Polities enforce their conception of rights within their borders, so that admitting people with different conceptions is importing violation of your own, importing more of them is importing invasion, and putting no limits is inviting colonization, which is already occurring throughout the southwest.

                  Read some Victor Davis Hanson, as he describes how his own town, Selma CA, has been transformed by immigration into a Latin American colony. Lots more crime, violence, and lawlessness. Some things are simple, that you wouldn’t think of, like dwindling vaccination of pets, and increasing use of the side of roads as garbage dumps. Others are more obvious and menacing, like increasing gang violence, and VDH watching what he says in fear of violent retaliation.

                  1. When you import people

                    There’s that “import” word again. Huh. People are not cargo.

                    And here’s the deal. People are going to migrate into this country, one way or another. They are either going to migrate through the border from foreign countries, or they are going to “migrate” through the vaginas of pregnant native-born moms. EITHER WAY, the cultural makeup of the nation is going to change. The way you maintain a culture that respects individual liberty, is to have strong institutions that respect liberty, and to have persuasive arguments on behalf of liberty. Demographics ALONE won’t do that. Do you really think that native-born babies will grow up to be supporters of liberty just because they were born here and not elsewhere? So your categorical error is to treat demographics as determitive of everything else in a person’s life. I call it “cultural determinism”. It treats people as one-dimensional objects based on their culture alone.

                    If you want liberty, you have to promote liberty. That means liberty for ALL. If you want to maintain a culture of liberty, you have to be honest and persuasive in your defense of liberty, because people can see through bullshit flag-waving masquerading as liberty. If your idea of liberty is “liberty for me but not for thee”, then don’t be surprised when no one truly cares about liberty anymore.

                    1. “Hey, Americans, if you like your country, you can’t keep it!”

                      It took mankind thousands of years to come up with the Anglo American conception of liberty, but racebaiterjeff blames Americans if they can’t develop a magic incantation to convert anyone who shows up in America into instant libertarian.

                      Countries around the world manage not to cast a blind eye to invasion every day. Americans don’t have to rely on magic incantations. Just enforce the borders, like most every other country in the world, at least the ones anyone wants to break into.

                      Is the irony of an intellectually dishonest dunderhead telling people “they just have to make better arguments” lost on anyone here *besides* racebaiterjeff?

                      Cultural determinism? Do you fail to see the statistical correlation between the culture that a person grows up in, and the culture they themselves embody?

                      Or is that just more cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty talking?

                    2. Americans don’t have to rely on magic incantations. Just enforce the borders

                      So even if the government does what you wish, what is your plan to persuade native-born Americans to preserve a culture of liberty? Will this be a “magic incantation”? Or something else?

                      If “something else”, do you think this same type of technique can work for immigrants as well?

          2. You know who ACTUALLY knows what is “likely to be of benefit to our country”? Individual citizens acting in their own free capacities. When each individual is free to pursue their own goals as he/she fits, then the aggregate of all of those individual choices leads to the most benefit to the country. Isn’t that the entire moral basis of capitalism? That individualized choice leads to better outcomes than centralized decision-making? Why doesn’t the same logic apply for immigration?

            1. I couldn’t agree with you more chemjeff but I find it odd this may be the only case where you profess a respect for individual decision making and decentralization of authority. Could it be the principals and not the principles?

              1. but I find it odd this may be the only case where you profess a respect for individual decision making and decentralization of authority.

                In which issue do I not favor individual decision making and decentralization of authority?

                1. In which issue do I not favor individual decision making and decentralization of authority?

                  Environmental regulation. Climate change. Energy extraction. “Hate speech”. Taxation. Social safety net. Health care.

                  1. So you can point to instances and quotations where I have argued against individual decision making and decentralization of authority, on all those issues, right?

                    Or are you just assuming that I do based on a narrative that I’m some sort of Berniebro socialist?

                    Here is just one example. There was an article the other day about climate change by Bailey. Why don’t you go there and see all the times that I advocated for government regulation to combat climate change, k? Spoiler alert: I didn’t.

                    I’ll even help you out:

                    https://reason.com/2019/07/12/is-climate-change-loading-tropical-storm-barry-up-with-extra-rain/#comment-7850797

                    What you describe are technological responses based on scientific observations. Those are fine. But you know what would be even better? Obviating the need for a technological response in the first place. Many progressives mean that to mean “confiscate lots of wealth and use that to restructure the global economy”. I don’t. What if individual change could accomplish the same goal, without all the coercion, and without having to deploy the technology that you envision? Wouldn’t that be *better*?

                    This is what I argue for. Individual solutions for complex problems like climate change. Individual solutions for complex problems in general.

                    Don’t let the narrative fool you.

                    1. I don’t believe anything you say.

                      Blame yourself.

                    2. You were not going to believe anything I say anyway. I’m not posting that wall of text to try to persuade YOU.

                    3. Or me Pedo Jeffy. You really are the worst. People like you have a lot of blood on their hands.

            2. So you favor sponsorship?
              I’m all for that.
              If you’d like to import a foreign national for the purpose of employing him/her, I’m 100% on board with you being able to do so – provides you accept full legal and financial responsibility for him/her and bear the consequences of such (and the courts fix the birthright citizenship deliberate misinterpretation).
              For some reason, I think you’ll object

              1. If you’d like to import a foreign national

                I don’t “import” people as if they were cargo.

                I think employment of a non-citizen should be treated on the exact same terms as employment of a citizen. If I hire a citizen to mow my lawn, it is not my job to take care of that citizen’s financial needs after the task is completed. Same deal with non-citizens.

                Besides, considering that there are far more citizens who consume welfare than non-citizens, maybe your rule should better be applied to employers wishing to hire citizens AS WELL AS non-citizens. Isn’t that one of the critiques from the left concerning low-wage employment – that it is somehow WalMart’s duty to pay their employees a “living wage” because otherwise the employees just go on food stamps to cover the difference, and become a public burden? That the state is essentially subsidizing WalMart to pay its employees low wages?

                It is funny, isn’t it, how the progressive anti-business arguments and the nationalist anti-immigration arguments seem to converge at some level.

                1. If I hire a citizen to mow my lawn, it is not my job to take care of that citizen’s financial needs after the task is completed.

                  Guess how I can tell you’ve never hired anybody in your life?

                  Remember when you were slobbering all over Obama’s cock for 8 consecutive years and rah rahing the ACA and its individual mandate? Yeah… employers kinda take care of that. If you’d ever held a job you might have noticed a line on your paycheck for FICA taxes as well. Employers take care of that too.

                  1. Remember when you were slobbering all over Obama’s cock for 8 consecutive years and rah rahing the ACA and its individual mandate?

                    No I don’t remember that, because it never happened.

                    1. I think he’s on to you Jeff, that isn’t going to work.

                2. considering that there are far more citizens who consume welfare than non-citizens

                  True only in absolute terms because non-citizens constitute an absolute minority. Proportionally the only demographic group that uses more welfare than non-citizens is native blacks. We aren’t supposed to talk about that either though.

                  1. Jeff, lying with stats again.

                    “MORE CITIZENS THAN NON!!!”

                    “Oh yeah? Per capita? ”

                    *crickets*

                    1. “Per Capita” isn’t the correct way to make an apples-to-apples comparison.

                      If you compare by income, education level, and number of kids, the welfare consumption rate between native-born and non-native-born households is similar.

                3. Employ anyone you like, but they don’t get to come here just because you want a cheap human widget.

                  1. I don’t want a cheap human widget. I want my right to freedom of association protected by the state. You said below that you would defend my rights. Why are you not defending this one?

                    1. Murderers and rapists must be freed if Jeff wants to employ (LOL, I know, just for the sake of a hypothetical) them!
                      Associate with foreign nationals all you want.
                      Phone, internet, mail, go visit them (if their country will allow you).
                      Fuck you trying to force your terms on everyone else.

            3. Why doesn’t the same logic apply for immigration?

              That has been explained to you repeatedly. Learn some new tunes.

              1. Uh huh. Because “reasons”. I get it.

                1. Yes, I believe you do. That’s why you refuse to engage with the arguments.

                  1. What arguments?
                    Oh let’s see.
                    “Because people create a culture and we need central planning of the culture, unlike central planning of goods and services. Otherwise the US turns into Venezuela.” Is that your argument? Because I’ve heard that one.

                    1. Links or it didn’t happen.

                    2. Is that not your argument? Okay, then, what is the argument that I am supposedly refusing to engage with?

                    3. See! He engaged your argument his strawman right there!

                    4. Countries are people.
                      Import Not Americans, Become Not America.

                      This is not complicated.

                    5. Countries are people.

                      If so, then America died over 200 years ago when the founding generation died.

                      Maybe just maybe, countries are more than just people.

                    6. Their children largely carried on their legacy… As we brought in more and more foreigners, America WAS changed, and in many ways for the worse. I bet if America were a nation of 150 million people today that were mostly descended from the original founding stock, we’d be a different, wealthier, freer country.

            4. “You know who ACTUALLY knows what is “likely to be of benefit to our country”? Individual citizens acting in their own free capacities. ”

              Would foreign invaders know better, or care, what is in the best interests of American citizens?

              They’ve got their own interests and values that are more important to them.

              1. Don’t you think American citizens *individually* know what is best for themselves, more so than a government which purports to represent them?

                Who would you rather be deciding who you would like to hire to work at your business – yourself, or the state?

                And why does the answer change if the applicants for the job are citizens or not?

                1. Human beings are more than economic widgets for you and the Koch’s to profit off of.

                  Hire all the foreign human widgets you want outside the US, but their stay in the US affects other Americans.

                  US immigration policy does not have to cater to your desire for a imported pool of electorally unenfranchised foreign human widgets.

                  Other Americans don’t want America to be a tyranny. Maybe you’d be happier in Saudi Arabia. I hear they’re big on importing a unenfranchised foreign labor class.

                  1. Human beings are more than economic widgets for you and the Koch’s to profit off of.

                    Good! We agree on something.

                    Hire all the foreign human widgets you want outside the US, but their stay in the US affects other Americans.

                    US immigration policy does not have to cater to your desire for a imported pool of electorally unenfranchised foreign human widgets.

                    In other words, you don’t want to respect my right of freedom of association. That is what you are saying, right?

                    1. My freedom of expression means punching you in the face.
                      How dare you not support my freedom of expression!
                      You’re a psychotic clown, jeff

                2. Don’t you think you just completely dodged the question?

                  That’s what you always do. You start a line of argument. You are refuted. You ignore the refutation and throw different shit at the wall.

                  1. Don’t you think you just completely dodged the question?

                    You mean, your bullshit leading question-begging ‘question’ referring to migrants as “foreign invaders”? Yes, I did dodge that ‘question’ because it was not a question asked in good faith.

                    1. If a foreign army were marching across our border, by what argument could you justify our government preventing them from entering, in accordance with the principles you have stated in your comments about immigration? Don’t they have the right to go wherever they wish? Don’t they have the right to keep and bear arms, and use arms in self-defense? Isn’t our government required to respect and defend those rights of theirs, even though they are foreigners?

                    2. Don’t they have the right to go wherever they wish?

                      Without violating others’ rights, sure.

                      It’s hard to imagine a foreign invading army not violating anyone’s rights.

                    3. So, in that event, our army would have to watch and wait patiently for someone in the invading army to violate someone’s rights before they could take any action to repel them? As long as they were careful not to violate anyone’s rights, we would have to let an unlimited number of them march across the border unmolested? And if a violation of someone’s rights occurred, could our armed forces then attack the whole column, or must we treat them as individuals and take action only against the individual soldier who committed the rights violation?

        3. “Invasion USA is best for Americans. The sooner they are made to submit to Latin America, the better.”

    2. there is no such thing as the United States and “ïts” people. That is the core of the problem, 100 years of false identity and loss of structure. The United States is not a country, it is the name for a federal government of 50 States. It does not have “people”.

  3. “The Libertarian Response”, as usual, appears to be, “How do we keep the peasants happy and quiet while continuing to do the things that are pissing them off?”.

    I often wonder if the French aristocrats were this oblivious as they were getting dragged off to the guillotine.

    1. This 100%. For an ideology that claims to have no access to or control over power, it is remarkably worshipful of the powers-that-be and seemingly oblivious of any economic problems that hit others who have no power in the system.

      It’s like this version of libertarian is for elites who smoke pot. Which I guess does make them useful idiots.

      1. What the hell are you blathering on about?

        1. Utilitarian is not= libertarian. Reason is basically utilitarian on economic stuff. But not even the better form of utilitarian (greatest good for greatest number) which is a bit majoritarian but at least requires an awareness that some folks don’t benefit. Reason’s form isn’t even cost/benefit by calculation (net positive even if only one person is the beneficiary). It’s cost/benefit by theoretical assertion (some dead person ‘proved’ it’s beneficial under unknown circumstances at unknown times/places).

          Immigration and ‘free trade’ are both of this vein. Reason almost never admits anyone could possibly be harmed. And anyone who claims they are is simply racist because they couldn’t possibly be harmed. It’s a bullshit argument that has in large part created the vacuum that Trump stepped in to fill.

          When you don’t take people seriously – someone else will get power by taking them seriously.

          1. It’s so much simpler than that. Reason receives over 90% of its financial support from two brothers who run a multinational chemical business. Whatever benefits those two brothers and their multinational chemical business is good. Whatever does not is bad. It’s really no more principled or complex than that. You’re reading the management equivalent of the Economic Policy Institute.

    2. The French aristocracy was not overthrown by peasants. The Revolution was a bourgeois, liberal capitalist middle-class revolution, including all of the ever-present “left” and “right” wing tendencies. If anything it was a union of the emerging middle class, the disinherited or thwarted part of the upper class, combined with an urban proletariat. Peasants were happy to end taxes and get their land, but had no need to overthrow society.

  4. Happy Bastille Day to us all – – – – –

  5. “confiscationist policies of a populist government”

    That’s a really round about way of saying “Socialism.”

    1. This guy gets it.

  6. By those definitions, Trump is no more populist than Obama or any of the other DNC candidates before him. There is not a single one of them who has not claimed to represent “the people”. They all use the same rhetoric of representing the people and battling an enemy – the rich, corporations, extremists… they all divide based on group status.

    “Populists claim that they, and they alone, represent the people.” In that formulation, the key to understanding populism is that “the people” does not include all the people. It excludes “the enemies of the people,” who may be specified in various ways: foreigners, the press, minorities, financiers, the “1 percent,” or others seen as not being “us.”

    Donald Trump casually expressed that concept while running for president, declaring: “The only important thing is the unification of the people, because the other people don’t mean anything.”

    Obama famously refused to work with the opposition in any way, saying “elections have consequences”.

    I think your dividing line between “populist” and a normal, real or serious leadership is much less clear and objective than you pretend. It sounds a lot more like “this is a group of successful politicians who are particularly unsavory”.

    In fact, by most of the measures you list, Obama was more of a populist than Trump. He declared himself exempt from the restrictions of office more … (need I list the undeclared wars and acts of war without congress’ authorization, diversion of a trillion dollars in funds for the mortgage crisis to other “crises”, theft of General Motors and its assets from its owners and creditors “for the people”, “I have a phone and a pen” declaration of independent authority above and beyond the legislature…)

    Yet nobody is running around calling him “populist”.

    I think your dividing line for populist could more accurately be described as “unsavory buffoon” vs “skilled and slick politician”.

    The “populist” leaders on your list mostly seem to be buffoons who tap into a disaffected resentment among the people in order to overturn the political establishment. The exact same rhetoric and results from a politician who is supported by the establishment is apparently not a populist.

    The only 2 elected US presidents in the last 60 years who don’t fit your definition of Populism would probably be Bush I and Bush II, since they lacked the rhetorical skill and personal charisma to pull it off. All of the rest of them talked of “us and them” and attempted to put the political opposition firmly on the side of “them”.

    1. I would exclude Ronald Regan . He did work with the dems , for better or worse and had a friendly relationship with Tip O’Neill. He even have the leadership of congress over for drinks now and then with one rule. No politics tonight. Even Sam Donaldson, who disagreed with him on most issues , said you couldn’t held to like the guy.

      1. In the case of Reagan the enemy was communism and the Soviet Union, not an internal enemy. But by his stated definition, Populists use an enemy. And if anything defined Reagan, it was that he was going to defeat communism. And he pretty much did.

        Which is one reason the resurgence of communism in the Democrat party is so particularly horrifying.

    2. I remember it like yesterday, when Trump claimed that only his supporters were the true Americans, and condemned Democrats as “the basket of deplorables. They’re racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic — Islamophobic — you name it … — they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America.”

      1. IT WAS HER TURN !!!

      2. buybuydandavis, Irony is not understood by progressives, but good job.

      3. Hillary’s actual quote:

        https://time.com/4486502/hillary-clinton-basket-of-deplorables-transcript/

        You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?

        [Laughter/applause]

        The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now how 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America. But the other basket — and I know this because I see friends from all over America here — I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroine, feel like they’re in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.

        1. I like how you think that full quote absolves hillary. God you’re dumb little jeffrey.

          1. Just another non sequitur from racebaiterjeff.

            When he has no answer to a point, he just randomly flaps his arms and clucks in response.

        2. WOW! The full quote was even worse than the summary.
          What a hate filled demagogue.

          1. Yes, the full quote makes it much more clear that she regards her political opponents as mentally inferior.

            1. Then, not too different to how the typical Trump boot-licker around here regards progressives.

              1. “Then, not too different to how the typical Trump”

                OMFG he is actually legit salty about people insulting Clinton.

                Holy shit.

              2. Then, not too different to how the typical Trump boot-licker around here regards progressives.

                Your friends are trash in human form, so I can see why it gets you so upset.

              3. Well Pedo Jeffy, YOU are mentally inferior. You prove that every day here with your comments.

                1. Jeff might be mentally inferior, but you are utterly intellectually and morally bankrupt, so meh.

          2. The summary was my tweet sized version.

        3. chemjeff sticks up for his lefty boos again.

        4. Lol. Thanks for the context, that sounds totally different!

          Now tells us all about that time when Trump said that white nationalists were “fine people”.

    3. At best his definition dwindled to some vague democratic appeal. Government leaders and officials should represent the will of the people. It’s ironic that the globalists hate populism when their goal is to put everyone under the same authority accountable to some central organizing scheme.

    4. Cyto, I like your comment best. Libertarians recognize it’s not the name given to a political movement or party that matters. Increasing government power and reduced individual freedom is the problem, whether it results from the socialist left, or anti-freedom right. And while I agree with “the ongoing Trumpist takeover of the Republican Party isn’t just a populist spectacle in itself; it has also helped fuel a surge of left-wing populism among the Democrats”, what’s generated “the surge of left-wing populism” is push back from the establishment losing its power, so some politicians are selling socialism (freebies at taxpayer expense for votes) because their old game of making promises of prosperity then delivering more government and less prosperity aren’t working (as Trump said, they’ve had decades to address the problems they’ve promised to solved, but haven’t).

      From the libertarian point of view, what matters is individual freedom. And while the historical trend is towards more freedom, the past 5 decades have seen less and less economic freedom with more and more government control in the US. It’s taken a toll on peoples’ prosperity, to the benefit of the elites running the government and their friends. And on that note, populism is a good thing in reducing that (assuming that’s what actually happens rather than replacing the government with a worse one).

      Palmer concludes “To stop authoritarian populism, it’s important not to promote the mentality of enmity that enables it.” I conclude the more people understand government is an evil (but necessary), and that keeping it limited to protecting us from others who’d harm us (why we need it and it’s purpose), the more likely people will elect politicians who defend our freedom and keep government within it’s limits. Populism isn’t the problem, more government is.

      1. Nice idea….

        Unfortunately, what we end up with when people realize that the government is evil and we need protecting from that evil is a call for more power for the government … so that they can have “the tools they need” to stamp out such threats.

        Sometimes it really does feel like that one-way ratchet they talk about.

    5. “Populism” means collectivism that the white hoi polloi support. Mainstream leftism of the type that Reason espouses means collectivism for minorities only. That’s it.

      1. Poor white families don’t go on welfare? Sorry to break the news, but they do go on welfare.

  7. a common driver in “national populism” is not falling wages but “relative deprivation—a sense that the wider group, whether white Americans or native Brits, is being left behind relative to others in society, while culturally liberal politicians, media and celebrities devote far more attention and status to immigrants, ethnic minorities and other newcomers.

    No, it’s not the relative deprivation, it’s unabashed favoritism for those out groups. Affirmative action, racial and gender quotas, reparations, free stuff for immigrants, etc are all tilting the playing field against current majority citizens. Efforts purportedly to ‘level’ the playing field are simple discrimination, bigotry, and racism sold as for the common good.

    1. “It’s only racism when Whitey does it.”

    2. Efforts purportedly to ‘level’ the playing field are simple discrimination, bigotry, and racism sold as for the common good.

      Honest question: In the absence of government programs such as affirmative action, etc., do you think the playing field is ‘level’?

      1. So you’re saying equality => a non-level playing field, right?

        1. It depends on what you mean by “equality”.

          Of course every human being is unequal so the results of their unequal efforts will be unequal results, no matter how fair or just the system is which they may be operating in. That’s fine, that type of inequality I don’t think anyone has a real problem with. No one is demanding equal representation for overweight nerds on NFL teams.

          But past decisions built the current system in which we operate. If the efforts from similar people produce results that are vastly disproportionate, due to injustices within the system itself, then that is a type of inequality that is more problematic.

          So I think those who might favor affirmative action-type programs (I do not, by the way), might argue that the current system in which we operate generates disproportionate results from similar individuals based on attributes like race or gender or sexual orientation which are largely beyond the control of any individual. They might argue that government programs are necessary in order to correct the injustices in the current system which produce disproportionate results for these reasons. Not to try to make everyone equal, because that’s not possible, but to ameliorate the unjust parts of the system which generate inequalities for bullshit reasons.

          I personally think that capitalism is the best way to tear down bullshit inequalities in the system, by letting people be free to generate wealth in a vibrant economy that may have pockets of racial injustice or whatnot, but because there are so many options available to people, these small injustices really don’t amount to much in the big picture.

          But I think we at least have to be honest with ourselves and acknowledge that the current system is NOT a level playing field, that there are a lot of bullshit inequalities baked into the system, but using government coercion to try to “correct” these inequalities will not fix the problems that they are trying to solve.

          1. Shorter jeff: “I wholeheartedly believe in the gospel of systemic racism”

            1. Which will be cured by… more government.

              1. Which is not what I wrote.

                1. No one cares, it is what you believe.

                  1. So you are going to put words in my mouth?
                    That is not what I believe, and that is not what I wrote.

                    1. I do that sad fucking thing YOU DO and simply say you’re lying.

                      No one believes you.

                    2. So you admit that you’re cynically lying about what I actually believe, because that is what you think I do, in order to push a false narrative about me that you hope will supplant the truth. Is that it?

                    3. It’s hilarious watching you cry like a little fucking bitch when somebody subjects you to the exact same bullshit you pull in literally every discussion thread.

                    4. “So you admit that you’re cynically lying”

                      Only if that’s the “thing YOU DO”

                      Which you have admitted here it is, apparently. You have, without realizing it, admitted that you are cynically lying when you call people liars.

                      Well done fucktard.

                    5. That is what YOU THINK I do.

                      I don’t cynically lie about people in order to push a false narrative about them. I don’t do that sort of thing. Evidently that is what you do.

                      I do try to cut through bullshit rationalizations that people present to try to understand the actual reason that a person might believe such a thing. That’s the difference.

                      You see, when a certain segment of posters here get *disproportionately* outraged over something like illegal immigration, far disproportionate to any rational impact that this problem might be causing, I’m going to try to understand what is the basis for that disproportionate response. And what I’ve concluded, is that a great deal of that *disproportionate* outrage is generated by *feelings* of paranoia, xenophobia, bigotry, and/or fear of cultural and demographic change. Perhaps there is some small part of it that is authentically concerned about illegal behavior, or welfare usage, or burdens on the criminal justice system. But when it comes right down to it, the big reasons are one or more of those four I mentioned above.

                      So I’m just not going to play around with the bullshit anymore. If you don’t want those immigrants here because you are afraid of what a browner America will be like, then just say so and we’ll have a discussion on that basis. But don’t feed me lies about “OMG welfare state” and expect me to believe it, because the welfare state alone cannot justify the *disproportionate* response.

                      In contrast, you’ll deliberately spread lies about me that have little if any rational basis because you think defamation is fun.

                      So, that is far too long of a response than you deserve. But there it is.

                    6. I do try to cut through bullshit rationalizations

                      This from a guy who told someone with darker skin than him to go attend a white nationalist rally.

                  2. Jeff, do you not read what you post?

                    You come here, fully supporting every authoritarian, totalititarian, collectivist idiocy that rears it’s head with endless posting–and occasionally say–all of your own posting to the contrary–that you’re not what you endlessly defend.

                    And we should believe it?

                    You are against people being made to fulfill the contracts they enter into.
                    You are against the idea of private property.
                    You support all manner of government intrusion into private life in the name of ‘saving the planet’.
                    You think that feelings trump free speech.

                    I–and everyone, could go on and on, adding more and more to this list.

                    You could BE the person OBL is pretending to be.

                    1. Umm, what? Where did this nonsense come from?

                      You are against the idea of private property.

                      Do you have any source whatsoever that can justify this claim at all?

                      I think you have let narrative trump facts. I’m aware that many here believe a narrative about me that I’m just a Berniebro progressive. That is because I don’t particularly like Trump, or the right-wing in general, and these people tend to associate “opposition to Trump” with “support for socialism”. For the record, I’m opposed to both Trump and socialism. Perhaps you should read what I actually write, and not let the narrative get in the way of the truth.

                    2. It’s just sad.

                      I come here, and when a guy like Jesse starts supporting Hawley’s Internet censorship bill, I am the guy who pushes back based on private property rights.

                      And then when I come here and OPPOSE government-run affirmative action, I’m accused of not just lying, but also “against the idea of private property”.

                      This is beyond absurd.

                    3. I’m aware that many here believe a narrative about me that I’m just a Berniebro progressive. That is because I don’t particularly like Trump, or the right-wing in general

                      No, it’s because you incessantly defend Berniebro policies across the spectrum. On rare occasion you will do like you have here and support the underlying ideological framework of progressive leftism and then disclaim that you actually support the only policy proposals that logically flow from them. But you often turn around and immediately contradict yourself. Such as when you support federal alternative energy subsidies, property takings, and resource extraction bans in the name of environmentalism while claiming you support private property, or claiming that the 2,000 white nationalists in the country justify deplatforming of people who are not white nationalists while claiming that you support free speech. Try not lying constantly and changing your position every time you get on one of your hobby horses.

                    4. Okay just stop right there:

                      Such as when you support federal alternative energy subsidies, property takings, and resource extraction bans in the name of environmentalism

                      When have I *ever* supported those things?

                    5. Do you have any source whatsoever that can justify this claim at all?

                      You believe that something called “the state” owns the US.

                      I am the guy who pushes back based on private property rights.

                      Pushes back on what? On the demand that people abide by the contract entered into. That’s what you push back on.

                      And then when I come here and OPPOSE government-run affirmative action, I’m accused of not just lying, but also “against the idea of private property”.

                      Do you REALLY believe that’s what you’re doing? Jeff, you are the quintessential “I believe in free speech, BUT….” person.

                      Here, from your opposition to government-run AA,

                      Of course every human being is unequal so the results of their unequal efforts will be unequal results, no matter how fair or just the system is which they may be operating in. That’s fine, that type of inequality I don’t think anyone has a real problem with. No one is demanding equal representation for overweight nerds on NFL teams.

                      BUT past decisions built the current system in which we operate. If the efforts from similar people produce results that are vastly disproportionate, due to injustices within the system itself, then that is a type of inequality that is more problematic.

                    6. Azathoth, do you have anything to add that isn’t gibberish?

                      “The state” is another term for the government. And yes, the government owns PUBLIC land, not every single parcel of private property.

                      Of course every human being is unequal so the results of their unequal efforts will be unequal results, no matter how fair or just the system is which they may be operating in. That’s fine, that type of inequality I don’t think anyone has a real problem with. No one is demanding equal representation for overweight nerds on NFL teams.

                      BUT past decisions built the current system in which we operate. If the efforts from similar people produce results that are vastly disproportionate, due to injustices within the system itself, then that is a type of inequality that is more problematic.

                      Do you have any objection to this phrase? If so, why don’t you lay it out, instead of trying to twist it into something that it is not?

                      I believe certain types of inequality are a problem. I do not believe government-run programs are the solutions to these problems.

                      I suppose, to you, the “correct” solution is to not even acknowledge that there is a problem in the first place? Why would I deny reality?

                    7. I have issues, Jeff, with your endless ‘but’s.

                      You’re for liberty, but

                      You’re for free speech, but

                      Everything you say, you surround with buts, and by the time you’re done you’ve butted yourself into that statist leftist corner you seem to love so much–time and time again.

                      EVERYONE sees it, Jeff. It’s not just Tulpa.

                      And when you get called on it too much. When everyone’s sick of your semantic bullshit, you tear off a but and trot it out there with a ‘But I said this….’ and think that changes something.

                      Why are you so ashamed of what you are?

                      I call myself rational anarchist. I call myself libertarian, I am definitely on the right–probably the far right, as I define it (hint–‘far right’ doesn’t include people who call themselves ANY kind of socialist)–I never pretend to be something I’m not in order to argue those points under the guise of a different set of ideals.

                      But you do.

                    8. “Why would I deny reality?”

                      Because you’re insanely insecure and feel deep seeded existential unworthiness that your ego tries to hide (from yourself as much as anyone) beneath a delusional perspective and phony moral pretense.
                      Everything Azahoth says above is accurate, BUT you are too weak for self examination

      2. Are you, the self-styled radical individualist, in favor of these collective-action programs?

        1. See above.

            1. So, no.

      3. You can’t be seriously defending affirmative action

        1. Chemleft supports whatever’s fashionable with the Western establishment at the moment. It’s astonishing that he even gives lip service to libertarianism.

        2. I’m not defending government-run affirmative action programs, no.

          I am noting, however, that the playing field is not level. The best way to remedy that is unbridled capitalism.

          1. Cytotoxic the Canadian white bread cracker living in his affluent parents’ basement understands intimately the plight of the socially deprived African American doncha know.

            1. If you have a problem with Cytotoxic, why don’t you take it up with him/her.

      4. I’m saying I don’t care, and neither should my government.

      5. Do you want a government empowered to make life fair, oh Muh Anarchist?

    3. The French aristocracy was not overthrown by peasants. The Revolution was a bourgeois, liberal capitalist middle-class revolution, including all of the ever-present “left” and “right” wing tendencies. If anything it was a union of the emerging middle class, the disinherited or thwarted part of the upper class, combined with an urban proletariat. Peasants were happy to end taxes and get their land, but had no need to overthrow society.

  8. Populism: government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

    That’s as populist as it gets. And elites don’t like it. They prefer government of the ruling class, by the ruling class, and for the ruling class.

    “The Libertarian Response
    To take on such populist ideas, …”

    Libertarians should *support* government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

    I do love how he blames Americans for illegal immigration, because duh, if you just let them all in, they wouldn’t have to come in illegally. It’s *your* fault, evil American! How dare you want a country?

    Also notice:
    “Trying to divide humanity into taxpayers and tax eaters … feeds into populist hatred and rage.”

    For a brief time I found myself the President of the Classical Liberal Society at the University of Washington. Mainly by the process of elimination.

    But Tom Palmer came over and gave his talk to a too small group of listeners.

    He went through a description of Nixon injecting money into inner cities, complete with synchronous drawing of a giant syringe. People one the dole were junkies, and government was the pusher.

    Now he’s shushing people who point out that imported government dependents cost Americans money and statistically vote for bigger government when they get the vote.

    Reason Then: Taxation is theft!
    Reason Now: Except when foreigners do it!

    1. +1000

      Tom Palmer is another person who mistakes Anarchists for Libertarians. He refuses to accept that Libertarians are okay with Rule of Law under a tiny and limited government where basic natural rights are protected.

      1. Ironically, in opposing Trump’s populism, he’s an ideological anarchist aligning himself with the Deep State, much like Reason.

        #LibertariansForTheDeepState

    2. Populism: government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

      Except what you populists regard as “the people” aren’t actually all of the people. What populists actually mean, is a government of, by and for the “real Americans” who are only a subset of “the people”. All those other people – their views don’t really matter, for one reason or another.

      1. Yes, non-resident foreign nationals – even illegal aliens – are not The People.
        Citizens, including “minorities” and foreign born who immigrated here and gained or are working towards citizenship are real Americans.
        Who considers themself American?
        It’s not hard

        1. Citizens, including “minorities” and foreign born who immigrated here and gained or are working towards citizenship are real Americans.

          Really? Even progressives? Even those hated coastal elites? They are just as much “real Americans” as the Trump-voting coal miner in West Virginia?

          1. Sure, they’re Americans.
            They’re just not people.

            1. +10

          2. Progressives are not real Americans. Just subversives and traitors festering like a cancerous tumor. Pedo Jeffy is certainly part of the problem.

          3. “Really? Even progressives? Even those hated coastal elites? They are just as much “real Americans” as the Trump-voting coal miner in West Virginia?”

            I’m increasingly dubious that it’s possible to have a free country with the lawless left, but I’m still hoping we can avoid open civil war.

        2. “Who considers themself American?”

          Mexicans do. Same with anyone from North or South America. Canadians tend to bristle if you mistake them for Americans.

          1. Mexicans don’t.

            Hence the term ‘Mexican’.

            Guatemalans, Venezuelans, Brazilians, Peruvians, Argentinians, Columbians.

            None of them consider themselves ‘Americas’.

            Why? Because the only country in all the Americas that actually uses ‘America in it’s name is the United States of AMERICA.

            Some of those countries had names before America called itself America.

            idiot.

            1. +1

            2. The retard thought he was making a clever point about how “the Americas” are a series of continents and not just a country. He’s also a 9/11 Truther nutbar. Just ignore him or mock him mercilessly.

            3. ‘Americas’

              No. AmericaNs. People from America. North or South.

              1. I said ‘idiot’ already, now go eat your paste.

        3. whoever considers himself is a wanker

          it has nothing to do with emoting “consideration” into the atmosphere

      2. Except what you populists regard as “the people” aren’t actually all of the people.
        What Chemleft is saying here is “This isn’t actually what you believe, you actually believe something different and racist and mean”.
        It’s an old proggy rhetorical trick and it’s incredibly dishonest, but they usually get away with it.

      3. Yep.

        Americans don’t claim dominion over the whole world, nor do they wish to submit to the dominion of the rest of the world.

        “The people” they refer to are Americans.

        It’s funny how you think you’ve made some point for your argument by saying we mean Americans and not the whole damn world, when we’re the first to *insist* that’s exactly what we mean.

        1. “The people” they refer to are Americans.

          ALL Americans? Even Obama, Bernie, progressives? Even me?

          Do you intend to stick up for my views, as an American?

          1. But you’re actually a Canadian who used to go by the name of cytotoxic. Your views mean shit. And even if you were an American and not a compulsive liar sockpuppet operator, you can defend your own views just fine – just as soon as you receive them from your betters at Bleeding Heart Libertarians, that is. They just don’t persuade anyone, and when you get crushed underfoot nobody is going to come to your aid, no.

            1. I’m not Cytotoxic, I don’t know who that person is.

              1. So where do you live Pedo Jeffy? How old are you? What is your background. Im betting you’re too chickenshit to say, and probably have a lot to hide and be ashamed of.

          2. Yours?

            No. Because you’re a censorious prick and deserve to eat your own policies.

          3. “Do you intend to stick up for my views, as an American?”

            I would stick up for your rights. I have no obligation or intent to stick up for your asinine views.

            1. I would stick up for your rights.

              No you don’t. You don’t stick up for my right of free association.

              And I’m willing to bet that you’d throw the rest of my rights under the bus if you thought it would advance your cause.

              1. You can associate with all the sex predators and illegals you want. That they might not be free to travel here is another matter entirely.

                Typical whining from Pedo Jeffy.

        2. no, it is a mathematically accurate statement. When the People exclude some and many of the actual people, it is populism.

          “populism” is “we ism”, which is really just “me ism”. You are not everybody.

          Populism is the infantile lack of adult boundaries

    3. Populism: government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

      That’s as populist as it gets. And elites don’t like it. They prefer government of the ruling class, by the ruling class, and for the ruling class.

      […]

      Libertarians should *support* government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

      Depends on what you mean by “the people.” The majority? If the majority of the people no longer believe in the private ownership of the means of production, does the government have the right to take it? It would be fulfilling the will of the people, or at least the majority of the people, after all.

      1. who’s “the people”? Why do retards in Alabama claim Vermont?

  9. If the government was just limited to the powers listed in the constitution the problem would be solved. Departments of Ed, energy, ag, commerce, HHS, labor, DEA and on and on would be eliminated. I dream.

    1. And the immigration problem would be a non-issue. If you import ten million people they can’t vote to do anything substantive against you (such as helping themselves to the treasury, seizing your business or outlawing your way of life or replacing the legal system with Sharia law) then there’s no issue with them being here.

      1. Even the early progressives of the era realized they needed to strictly limit immigration, legal immigration, to get over their big Gov welfare schemes.

      2. all of that is real only in you mind

    2. Sure you dream. We all dream. The question(s) is/are, what factors that are not parts of the end goal can be taken advantage of to get us closer to that dream, and what factors take us farther away? No fair starting at the finish line.

    3. “If the government was just limited to the powers listed in the constitution the problem would be solved. ”

      Nope.

      Countries are people. Particularly democracies. Import big government voters. Get big government.

      This is not complicated.

      1. This is why we can’t have tens of millions of progressives here. They must go.

        1. really? do you plane on invading the NE United States from Kansas?

          where is “here”, among ten million square miles of land?

          you are not “we’, just you, which is nothing, and it butt hurts

  10. “But is there anything libertarians, the vast majority of whom remain outside the halls of power where immigration policy is set, can do?”

    Yes! We libertarians can vote for Democrats. Because the Democratic Party is rapidly moving toward the Koch / Reason position on immigration.

    #VoteDemocratForOpenBorders
    #AbolishConcentrationCamps

  11. This article started with a reasonable premise (rise of authoritarian capitalism) and then mucked it all up by dragging in POTUS Trump. POTUS Trump is as much an authoritarian capitalist as he is Ethiopian (meaning not at all). That is just clickbait, IMO.

    I don’t see why people STILL do not understand why POTUS Trump was elected, and just badly misread him. I really don’t get it.

    For the two years leading to the election, Candidate Trump told the electorate: I am NOT a politician. I will not talk like a politician. I will not act like a politician. I will not be a politician. Amazingly, he was elected. And what did the MSM, Congress and Dems expect? They expected POTUS Trump to act like a politician. How freaking stupid is that?

    Why was POTUS Trump elected? Historians will write about this for many, many years, but here is a sampling.

    One, for the better part of 30 years, bi-coastal elites and Washington DC made their disdain and contempt clear for a wide swath of the electorate. Did they think people would not react to this? Newsflash: People hate hypocrisy, and obsequiousness with a passion.

    Two, this same swath of the electorate is rightfully angry. Did they benefit from Wall Street bailouts? Nope. They were told they just didn’t get it. And Wall Street awarded themselves BILLIONS in bonuses. Really?! That was followed by GM, and a host of others. Who benefited from that….because it was not the run of the mill worker. And we had a POTUS telling them: The jobs are gone and are not coming back. But in the meantime, we’ll piss away money on stupid shit like Solyndra, instead of trying to help you.

    Three, the Federal government has strayed far from its enumerated powers. With this expansion comes huge, expensive problems. And this same swath of the electorate was entirely ignored when they protested at the growth of government (and debt). PPACA is a prime example (and the 2010 election shows what happens as a result).

    Four, we now have hundreds of thousands of deaths from opioids in the last decade alone. There are families left behind who are grieving and mourning their losses. This is millions of people. And they are rightfully angry at a cynical system that allows pharma companies to deliberately misrepresent medication risks.

    Five, the influence of social media and search engines on elections is a troubling development. Eric Schmidt was literally trying to throw the election by deliberately altering search results. We can see what Facebook and Twitter are doing. This is uncharted territory, and one we need to address thoughtfully. But when you read the disgusting bile thrown around on social media describing ordinary Americans, I find it unbelievable.

    These are just a few examples. There is no single reason that POTUS Trump was elected. There are MANY reasons. But it seems to me that it comes down to this: The arrogance of bi-coastal elites and politicians toward the governed is simply breathtaking, and appalling. They were (and remain) completely disconnected to the reality of everyday life in America. There is a large swath of the electorate that got sick and tired of being treated contemptuously. When you routinely denigrate people, as has happened for the last 30 years or so, they don’t like that.

    1. One, for the better part of 30 years, bi-coastal elites and Washington DC made their disdain and contempt clear for a wide swath of the electorate. Did they think people would not react to this? Newsflash: People hate hypocrisy, and obsequiousness with a passion.

      Since the end of the Cold War straitjacket.

      Politicians no longer had nice simple guidelines. They had to wing it, find new ways to distract and confuse the electorate. Along came 9-11, and you couldn’t ask for a more useful ready-made excuse to expend government and push people around. Cold War round two, as it were; if you aren’t for us, you’re agin us.

      People get tired of endless pushing around, especially for such pitiful little punks as those suicide bombers.

      1. And then the “other side” decided they would use global warming to counter 9-11 militarism. That’s how pathetic the suicide bombers were; they couldn’t hold down the rabble well enough on their own, they just weren’t as existential a threat as nuclear armageddon. But 12 years to go, 18 months to the tipping point, well that’s worth moving the clock hands closer to midnight than they ever were at the height of the Cold War. I guess now it’s a Warmist War.

    2. The opioid “crisis” is not brought to us by big pharma; it is entirely a creation of the government. Just another prohibition with predictable and predicted results.

      The Wall Street shenanigans are also not corporate doings; they are again the direct results of government shenanigans, and everyone else following the new incentives just like they followed the old shenanigans.

      1. ahf…Hey, you have a lengthy name. Something shorter perhaps? 🙂

        Concur on your prohibition point – it doesn’t work and we give up individual liberties as a result. But that does not excuse fraud, which many pharma companies did with regard to opioids. They deliberately misrepresented a material fact.

        You echo a point I made = people got tired of being pushed around.

        I thought the article really started with a good premise; namely, we do see a new flavor of capitalism emerging. But then it got all lost on POTUS Trump, and some of the speculation I read just totally misreads why POTUS Trump was elected.

        1. I was curious how long a name was possible, and ran out of unicode chars about the same time.

        2. What material fact was misrepresented? That you might like to continue using opiates and not be legally allowed to?

          1. What material fact was misrepresented?

            That 1% of people prescribed opiates would become addicted. That number was based on a study of acute pain patients – with a known cause of pain (surgery) – who were given short-term prescriptions (1 week max – which has been the standard max prescription for opiates for non-terminal patients for decades) and monitored closely.

            The pharma co stripped all of that – except 1% – from their marketing to doctors. In combo with pain mgmt doctors spreading the notion of ‘pain as a 5th vital sign’ – and gaming the patent system to get patent protection and then marketing the crap out of the protected drugs to doctors and directly to prospective patients including on TV – the result was an explosion of opioid prescriptions.

            1. But how is that relevant as a matter of public policy?

              we now have hundreds of thousands of deaths from opioids in the last decade alone. There are families left behind who are grieving and mourning their losses. This is millions of people. And they are rightfully angry at a cynical system that allows pharma companies to deliberately misrepresent medication risks.

              What if liquor companies misrepresented the fraction of drinkers who drive drunk?

              1. How is fraud public policy? Where 40% or so of spending is directly on the taxpayers dime – and most of the remainder is transferred to others via insurance? Where those who run that fraud are given IP protection by govt?

                Are you nuts? Of course that’s public policy. We’re not talking about some street corner drug dealer who lied about his product.

              2. Oh – and if liquor companies marketed ‘You won’t become impaired if you drink our product’ to their customers, then yeah I would expect them to get hauled into court as an accessory to any homicides that result from their customers driving drunk.

    3. The arrogance of bi-coastal elites and politicians toward the governed is simply breathtaking, and appalling. They were (and remain) completely disconnected to the reality of everyday life in America. There is a large swath of the electorate that got sick and tired of being treated contemptuously.

      But you’re falling for the same populist trap, dividing America into the “real Americans” who are living “everyday life in America”, and the “bicoastal elites” who arrogantly look down on everyone else. Here is a news flash, the “bicoastal elites” are just as much “real Americans” as your typical Iowa farmer and are entitled to just as much voice as everyone else.

      1. You’re comments are more OBL than OBLs. You’ve become a parody.

        1. It’s amusing that you think the idea that each American is just as much a “real Americans” as the next one, is some sort of parody.

          1. It’s amusing that you think you have a point. Nobody is arguing that those people aren’t Americans. They are arguing that they are culturally and economically disconnected from the vast majority of Americans and their contempt for their fellows was noticed in a big way. Remember when you were jizzing your pants for like consecutive years over the Occutard movement back when you were still honest enough to identify yourself with your original account? They were making the same fucking point.

            1. Remember when you were jizzing your pants for like consecutive years over the Occutard movement back when you were still honest enough to identify yourself with your original account?

              I have no idea who this Cytotoxic person is. Please stop confusing me with this other person. If you have something to say to me, then say it to me. If you have a problem with Cytotoxic, then take it up with him/her, and leave me out of it.

            2. So, who are the “vast majority of Americans”? Only people that agree with you it seems. If you spoke for the “vast majority of Americans” you’d have no opposition and there wouldn’t be a Democrat majority in congress.

      2. real….I never said ‘Real Americans’ (which would be needlessly insulting); I did say bi-coastal elites and politicians, which is accurate. I suppose I should have thrown in Chicago and Houston for variety. The politicians and bi-coastal elites have a voice, just turn on the TV or look at the MSM. They are not afraid to tell the rest of us, the unwashed masses, what they think…and what they think of us. That is not a trap – this is just objective reality, Chem.

        The rest of American, the governed, have been treated with polite (and now not so polite) contempt for decades. That never should have happened. The reaction was eminently predictable: The election of POTUS Trump.

        I would urge Reason readership to read Murray’s book, Coming Apart.

        1. The governed have been treated with contempt by politicians since before Citizens United and are now treated with even more contempt. Any politician who takes PAC and dark-money contributions is bought and sold whether they are Democrat or Republican or Libertarian or whatnot. Lobbyists and billionaires rule.

      3. “How dare you notice that the ruling class hates you!”

    4. “Four, we now have hundreds of thousands of deaths from opioids in the last decade alone. There are families left behind who are grieving and mourning their losses. This is millions of people. And they are rightfully angry at a cynical system that allows pharma companies to deliberately misrepresent medication risks.”

      hunh? This one really stands out as ‘one of these things is not like the other’. Especially following ” the Federal government has strayed far from its enumerated powers.”

      Not bad overall though.

      1. Wood….My point relative to Big Pharma is this: They (many pharma companies) deliberately misrepresented a material fact (addiction risk). In our system, that is called fraud.

        Don’t believe me, that is fine. Then look up the CDC stats for yourself…2008 to present. We have well north of 300K opioid OD deaths. These people left grieving families behind, who are rightfully angry. Angry at the person, and angry at the manufacturer who misrepresented risks.

        1. “Addiction” is a deliberately obscure way of saying “appreciation”.

        2. To whom was it a mystery that opioids are addictive?

          Opioid addicts are the archtype of addicted junkies.

    5. What medication risks were misrepresented? The “risk” that one might like narcotics too much?

      1. Robert….There is what is printed on the label (why was there no black box label, btw), and then what happens in the interaction with a pharma sales rep discussing the on and off label uses of a medication. The addiction risk was downplayed, quite deliberately.

        For Pete’s sake Robert, we had a chief justice of SCOTUS get addicted to narcotics because he simply did not know the addiction risk, post back-surgery. We also had a POTUS on national TV suggest that painkiller meds might be a more cost-effective treatment for elderly patients needing a hip replacement.

        C’mon Robert….let’s not be obtuse about what happened here. Do we bear responsibility for our own acts. Yes. But there were flagrant misrepresentations of material facts. Had the addiction risk been discussed more prominently, I don’t think we would have the human carnage we now see.

  12. Fun fact of the day.

    They turned off comments on Shikha’s latest hysterical pants shitting.

    “Free Minds”

    It was inevitable. Last time they closed comments, KMG said it was a “software glitch”.

    You don’t build in the capability for shutting down comments unless you plan on using it.

    Better get Dissenter if you want to be able to comment on Reason articles in the future. They’re shutting us down so they can keep control of The Narrative.

    1. Are you referring to the articles in the latest edition of the print magazine?

      They routinely only allow early access to the articles for subscribers only. Not just Shikha’s articles. If you’ll note, other articles from the same issue are also behind the same restrictions.

      This is not some conspiracy to silence you. You’re a paranoid loon.

      1. It makes sense now… you’re idiocy stems from wanting to fuck Shikha. It’s all so clear now.

        1. That would be more desirable than wanting to give Senator Hawley a blowjob as you seem to want to do.

          1. “Senator Hawley”

            Jeff has had his new talking point issued.

            1. You haven’t heard? Jesse is one of Senator Hawley’s biggest fans around here. Jesse absolutely supports Hawley’s Internet censorship bill. Perhaps you should discuss it with him.

              1. “You haven’t heard? Jesse is”

                I don’t care.

                1. Oh I know. I’ll say Jesse supports Internet censorship by the state, and you’ll act like his best bud, but you’ll jump down my throat about private censorship by private individuals on private property.

                  1. Allowing publishers to be sued as publishers by withdrawing a regulatory protection that gave them a special exemption from being treated like publishers is not censorship as many times as you regurgitate the same stale talking point cytotoxic.

                  2. Platforms like Twitter and Facebook are not “publishers” in that sense. They are more like libraries. They facilitate the flow of information between patrons, but they do not write or edit the books inside the library. They may refuse to carry certain books, or withdraw certain books from circulation, but if they do so, no one’s rights are violated because there is no right to have one’s book appear at a particular library.

                    So if an author is “deplatformed” from a library, then it would be a meritless lawsuit for the author to sue the library for some rights violation.

                    But the censorious left AND right desperately want to spread the idea that Facebook is a “publisher” because it is a credible enough corruption of the truth that justifies their censorship plans.

                    1. #LibertariansForCorporateThoughtControl

              2. Withdrawing a regulatory protection that we carved out for the tech industry = internet censorship.

                Actually deplatforming people, getting them fired from their jobs, and getting them blackballed by multi-national banks is just live and let live baby.

                1. Oh look, it’s another Hawley boot-licker. Or maybe you’re a Warren skirt-sniffer. Could be either/or, nowadays.

                  1. Tough talk from a weak little bitch. We really need a Reason convention in Vegas. It would be so much fun to slap you around while you beg for mercy.

                    But then, I’m a big meanie. Right Pedo Jeffy? You’re always comp,aiming about me. So much so that I clearly live in your head. And I don’t come cheap. So pay me my fucking rent.

                2. racebaiterjeff is the charter member of #LibertariansForCronyCapitalism

      2. Are you referring to the articles in the latest edition of the print magazine?

        So Shikha’s in the print version? That woman is as far from rational as any Hearst yellow journalist ever was. She has *no* place in a magazine called “Reason”.

        And I was going to ask my kids to get me a subscription for my birthday. Pffft.

      3. Turns out it was actually an old article that they had recycled to the front page.

        https://reason.com/2017/03/02/like-fugitive-slave-laws-deportation-is#comments

        But looking into it further with google
        site:reason.com/2019/06 “Comments Are Closed”
        About 270 results

        site:reason.com/2019/06 “Leave A Comment”
        2 results

        That’s rather curious, is it not?

        1. At other sites, I have seen the practice of closing comments to very old articles, because otherwise the spammers will swamp the servers with spam to old comment sections that non-spammers aren’t posting to anymore anyway.

          So I still doubt it is some conspiracy to silence you.

          1. June 2019 articles are “very old”?

            1. Sure. Whatever. They’re trying to silence you. Better go down to your Y2K bunker and hide out before it’s too late.

  13. So far every comment is exhibiting the behavior that was described in the article.

  14. Populism today is not populism of yore. Populism today is merely politicians who are no longer confined by the two sides of the cold war.

    Look at the examples given: Poland, Hungary, Mexico, and Turkey. Italy and Greece. All but Mexico were directly a part of the cold war; their politicians had little choice about what policies to follow. What seems like populism is only because they are on their own for the first time since they were ruled by kings.

    I suppose you could call it true populism. It sure isn’t what used to be called populism.

    The EU electorates are also rebounding against the EU itself, which was really a reaction to the cold war. None of the western EU electorate were given much more choice about the EU than the eastern EU electorate were given any choice about the Warsaw Pact.

    People get tired of being pushed around by politicians claiming to act “in the name of the people”, whether those are Communist dictators, EU bureaucrats, or banana republics dancing to the US tune. Now they are on their own and feeling their way. They elect demagogues.

    Let’s compare to the early US. Independence gained in1783, new Constitution in 1787, and then all Presidents were founding fathers until Andrew Jackson in 1829. 46 years, 42 years, depending on how you count it.

    Nowadays it is, hmmm, how about that, 40 years exactly since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

    Coincidence? Two generations to go from “statesmen”, “elders”, what have you, to “populists”.

    Yeah, I don’t think I’m going to worry much.

    1. Err, 30 years. Well, only one typo, better than my average.

  15. What fuels populist politics is that concept of the people battling the elite.

    I suppose as a libertarian–someone who wants to make his own decisions about his own life instead of having my life run based on the decision of elites–that makes me an “authoritarian populist” then as well. Leave it to the left to bend the meaning of words to their advantage.

    Nonetheless, Berlin identified a core populist idea: the notion that an authentic “true people” have been “damaged by an elite, whether economic, political, or racial, some kind of secret or open enemy.”

    Gosh, apparently any public choice theorist is an “authoritarian populist”.

    The Authoritarian Dynamic, threats to “collective rather than individual conditions” trigger authoritarian “groupiness,” i.e., populism.

    You know what triggers “groupiness”? When racist, authoritarian Democrats demonize me based on my skin color and gender.

    Apparently, these days, one can’t be a classical liberal or a libertarian or a decent human being without being labeled an “authoritarian populist” by academics, political theorists, and Reason authors.

    1. JW…Another portion of the article gave me pause as well. The part about the ‘Libertarian Response’. There isn’t one. Meaning, a monolithic ‘Libertarian’ response. I know I’d love to see a return to enumerated powers, but readily acknowledge that some aspects have to stay for a while (are we really just going to stop SSA? Nope. Or take action to protect air and water? Nope.). Libertarians come in different ‘flavors’ I guess. Which is why there is not really a ‘Libertarian’ response.

      The article’s Charles Murray reference was spot-on. It was a tremendous piece of social sciences work that gives excellent background on the characteristics of the electorate.

    2. Public Choice Theory is the understanding that politicians behave according to what is in their best interests, despite claiming to represent the public’s will.

      Public Choice Theory, to my knowledge anyway, does not assert that politicians are elites seeking to damage the general public with their wicked ways.

      That’s the difference between public choice theory and nationalist populism.

      1. Public Choice Theory, to my knowledge anyway, does not assert that politicians are elites seeking to damage the general public with their wicked ways.

        You . . . you *almost* get it. Its not that they are actively trying to damage the general public, its *that they don’t care if they do*.

        That’s what Public Choice Theory says. And it applies to ‘populists’ as equally as it applies to everyone else.

      2. Public Choice Theory is the understanding that politicians behave according to what is in their best interests, despite claiming to represent the public’s will.

        Public Choice Theory, to my knowledge anyway, does not assert that politicians are elites seeking to damage the general public with their wicked ways.

        So you are saying that it’s OK for politicians to enrich themselves as long as the damage they cause in the process isn’t actually deliberate?

        In any case, you misunderstand what populists and libertarians object to. We object to the accidental damage politicians and intellectuals do while they enrich themselves.

      3. For tyrants, putting the people in their place *is* part of their interests.
        Think boot stamping a human face forever.

        Any political theory that denies that the tyrannical can gain power is utopian nonsense.

        I doubt that public choice theorists fall into that camp.

  16. Millions of years of evolution have given us human brains inclined if not hard-wired towards tribalism. Add in other regrettable tendencies (laziness, avoidance of responsibility, and dozens of unappreciated cognitive biases), and why are we surprised that average people readily embrace populism? Not to mention that these emotional buttons provide the most effective means of crowd stimulation for political leaders.

    Now mix in crowded populations, especially where different tribes have been recently combined. Season with new-age progressive fetishes like institutional diversity. Simmer (or boil) with a new digital media that makes everyone an attention whore. Enjoy.

    1. Millions of years of evolution… hard-wired towards tribalism… regrettable tendencies… laziness… cognitive biases… why are we surprised that average people readily embrace populism

      You must be so special and smart and totally not “average” to believe this. Far better than “regular” people anyway.
      Say… what if evolutionary impulses found in populism are actually the best way for the complex societies they evolved in to function?

      1. No no no – the laws of physics don’t apply in the case of humans!

      2. Thanks! As someone who tries to recognize my own biases (and those in others), and to use logic and reasoning instead of emotion and rhetoric, and also has a desire to do silly things like numerical analysis when possible, then maybe I am special.

        What makes me sad is not that this could make me above average, but that others who cannot or will not do this end up re-defining average downwards.

        As for evolutionary impulses, they often lead to conflict and annihilation. We can do better than chimps. I hope.

  17. So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly……
    ….and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how….
    ….it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!
    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 14, 2019

    Apropos to today’s discussion.

    1. Sheesh. And you complain about others dragging Trump into every conversation!

    2. That’s My President!

      1. So the people that Trump is calling out here, they are American citizens, many of whom were born here. Why should they go back to some other country when this is their country?

        Are these the Americans that you are referring to when you say the government should represent all Americans? Hmm, maybe not.

        1. Yea, I’m ok with calling out government officials who seek to use their monopoly of legitimate force to fundamentally transform the US into an anti-American socialist shithole subservient to global government.
          If they want to tout their roots and governing philosophies, let them prove the effectiveness of those philosophies in the places they claim to be more proud of than the US.
          After doing so, they can come back and show us how it’s done.
          You should go help them. Bring the world your open borders ideas. I’ll even cheer you on from afar.

    1. How dare you use this tragedy to joke about longtime libertarian activist Michael Hihn. He has accomplished more for libertarianism than you ever will.

      Furthermore, Michael Hihn would never own a modern rifle. He knows the Second Amendment only covers, at most, the type of guns available in the late 1700s.

      #BanAssaultWeapons
      #UnbanMichaelHihn

      1. +1=1
        Once in a while you still get out a real gem.

      2. Nonsense – irony = OBL

  18. This was an amazingly stupid article. We’re supposedly to simultaneously acknowledge that the definition of “populism” is so broad as to encompass virtually any ideology supported by a large part of the people of the nation, and also that it is “terrifying.”

    Note that all the alternatives to “populism” are equally or more “authoritarian.”

    I leave out anarchism in all its various socialist and capitalist permutations, as it’s a fantasy ideology for autistic basement-dwellers.

    1. Once again, for the umpteenth time:

      “Populism” is not a mere synonym for “democracy”.

      Populism is rooted in the belief that there is an in-group (“real Americans”) and out-groups (“arrogant elites”, “foreigners”) and that the priority of the state should be to promote the interests of the in-group at the expense of the out-groups.

      1. Put another way, pedo-Jeffy, populism is the population acting in its own self-interest?

        1. Oh look, it’s someone else who thinks it’s funny to accuse me of being a pedophile.

          Why do you think I am a pedophile? Why do you think it’s funny to accuse me of being one?

          1. I’m guessing it’s extrapolation from your passionate argument that the US doesn’t have the right to deny child-rapists asylum

            1. That’s not even my argument, and your ‘extrapolation’ is simply a slander.

              1. Slander refers to utterances, moron. In this context it would be a libel. And you don’t believe libel is an actionable offense, remember? Or is Trump no longer a fascist for saying that libel should be actionable?

                1. Also, truth is an absolute defense against defamation. So take it to a court and see what a jury thinks.

                  1. Amd the truth is Pedo Jeffy would rather let a million pedophiles swarm across our border than deny a single illegal access to our country.

                1. This, by the way, is why people call him “pedo jeff”
                  It’s a fun read.
                  Maybe also his concept that his “freedom of association” is absolute and what that implies about his mating options (through the use of tempting candy and a windowless van)

          2. It’s not funny, and you’re not funny. I call you Pedo Jeffy out of hate for you and your sick, perverted beliefs. Another illegal got a pass from people like you in New Jersey after breaking into a home and raping a six year old in her bedroom.

            That shit is on you Pedo Jeffy. You are part of the problem.

      2. Populism is rooted in the belief that there is an in-group (“real Americans”) and out-groups (“arrogant elites”, “foreigners”) and that the priority of the state should be to promote No one’s interest at anyone else’s expense.

        FIFY

        1. That’s not populism, that’s libertarianism.

          1. Let’s see, libertarianism as espoused by you and the Reason staff: VAT, welfare for immigrants, stipends for asylees, compulsory cake baking… nah, doesn’t sound much like the state promoting no one’s interest at anyone else’s expense.

      3. The idea of an in-group (and therefore an out-group) is inherent to virtually all political ideologies. You’re not really saying anything.

        Republics and Democracies also have in-groups. If you can’t differentiate between who is a member of your polity and who isn’t, you don’t really have a nation.

        1. Yes, there is an in-group and an out-group to all ideologies – the difference is how the in-group ought to treat the out-group. Nationalists tend to regard the in-group and superior and virtuous, while the out-group is either inferior, or harmful and dangerous.

          1. Nationalists tend to regard the in-group and superior and virtuous, while the out-group is either inferior, or harmful and dangerous.

            I have no opinion on billionaires or foreigners either way, other than that I don’t want my tax dollars to go to subsidizing either of them.

          2. Lol. AMC Theaters doesn’t project as much as you do. Holy fucking shit.

      4. Populism is rooted in the belief that there is an in-group (“real Americans”) and out-groups (“arrogant elites”, “foreigners”) and that the priority of the state should be to promote the interests of the in-group at the expense of the out-groups.

        I most certainly believe that the function of the US government is to “promote the interests” of the American people as a whole, not the special interests of billionaires, academics, or foreigners! I guess I’m an unapologetic populist!

        And by “promote the interests”, I mean that the US government should do what it is constitutionally obligated to do: defend the borders of the US, limit its powers to the constitutionally enumerated powers, and limits its actions to the general welfare (rather than any smaller group). I.e., a libertarian society inside well-defended national borders.

      5. Populism = self government

        Glad you’ve finally gotten on board with that.

        Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

        And yes, for the people of the polity under question, not the whole world.

  19. OK, first of all, what the feck do you mean by ‘Rise’? Authoritarian ‘Populism’ has been the hallmark of the 20th Century, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it outlived me. Castro, Ortega, Franco, Stalin, Mao; all of them were champions of the ordinary people…at least if you listened to their propaganda ministers (and a lot of supposedly smart people did). So, for that matter, were Wilson, FDR, Clinton, and probably a lot of British Prime Ministers whose names escape me.

    You may make some good point. I haven’t YET read the actual article. But that headline just SCREAMS ‘pearly clutching viewing with alarm’.

  20. One government globalists seem to be shitting their pants that their facades are crumbling. Their authoritarian beliefs of one regulation fits all beliefs all rational understanding of human nature. Long gone are the cries of allowing experimentation on smaller subsets of governance to allow political markets to deem best systems. A lot of this is driven from socialist tendencies based on their belief that everyone would be happy if they just were made to do what they (“the elite”) knew as best.

    Markets dont only work in economic realms. They also work in politics and evolution. The best settles after many trials of variations.

    When dod reason become so globalist, a belief whose roots are authoritarian?

    1. Are you saying we can survive without the EU dictating the proper curvature of bananas required to be allowed to be sold in grocery stores? That’s madness!

    2. When dod reason become so globalist, a belief whose roots are authoritarian?

      When the Koch brothers wrote the first check establishing the publication 50 years ago?

      1. Yeah, the Kochs have been a bitter disappointment. Trump really got them to drop the mask and show their true nature.

  21. Have to laugh at the notion of ‘college elites’ when nearly 2/3 of the country has some amount of college edukation. In the not to distant future nearly half will have a BA.

    1. “Have to laugh at the notion of ‘college elites’ when nearly 2/3 of the country has some amount of college edukation. In the not to distant future nearly half will have a BA.”

      Not only are your facts incorrect (about 20% of US adults have a BA or better, and about that many have some college education but no degree – see census.gov), but what’s your logic (now “nearly 2/3 of the country has some amount of college edukatoin” and “in the not too distant future nearly half will have a BA”)? You seem to imply more people are getting college degrees, but your numbers imply less will be getting degrees.

      Please do better next time.

  22. America Invest billions of dollars in Afghanistan for fighting a war against the Afghan Taliban but the U.S failed to get a positive response. Afghan Taliban become much stronger as compared to past that’s why the US is afraid that the Afghan Taliban will be an annihilate them. The world has a fear that Afghan Taliban becomes a supper army in upcoming days. So President Trump said,” America is decided to leave Afghanistan and sort out the matter with dialogue”

    Are the Afghan Taliban are future power after US army collapse

    Before 17 years ago President of Afghan Taliban Mullah Muhammad Umar said that the American army come to Afghanistan for fighting with us its own choice but they will not go back according to own demand. So today we are noticed that the Afghan Taliban is annihilated U.S army. America trying to leave Afghanistan secretly with the help of Pakistan because the U.S never officially accepted that the Taliban defeated

    1. a ragtag bunch of magical-thinking polygamist goatherders with donated weaponry are not going to become a world power. What is this nonsense?

  23. Excellent article.
    I hope the article makes clear that “populism” is not a mere synonym for “democracy”. Of course the populists are going to try to make that argument in order to soft-peddle the downsides of their ideology. Just like socialists down-peddle the authoritarianism and the coercion inherent in their ideology.

    Populism is rooted in the belief that there is an “in-group” which must be prioritized against the “out-groups”. The “in-groups” are the “real Americans” while the “out-groups” are various levels of enemies that have to be defeated. So the populist socialists regard the “in-group” as the working class and the “out-group” as the exploitative industrialists whose industries must be nationalized and seized by the state for the benefit of the “common man”. Trumpian populism, I suppose, is the belief that the “real Americans” are the in-group, and the out-groups are the foreigners, the coastal elites, the universities, the media (especially the media!), who are not just wrong on the merits, but are *dangerous threats* which must be defeated. That’s the difference here and that’s the scary part.

    1. The guy who does more labeling than any other commenter, save perhaps Kirkland, wants to bitch about in and out groups.

      1. Yeah I didn’t think you had anything constructive to add to the discussion.

        Why don’t you go back to 4chan or wherever.

        1. Can’t go back to somewhere I’ve never been.
          And I am not surprised that Jeff’s typucal perspective here is collectivist prejudice.

          1. “leave because you disagree with me”

            Also

            “Hey Reason, censor my critics, please”

            1. More like:

              “Hey Reason, censor the spammers and the trolls and the shitposters”.

              But the paranoid Right being paranoid and all, they take any form of enforcing standards to be impermissible censorship.

              1. “chemjeff radical individualist
                July.14.2019 at 4:31 pm
                More like:

                “Hey Reason, censor”

                Ahahah HE FUCKING ADMITS IT!!

                YOU ACTUALLY WANT TO CENSOR PEOPLE YOU DON’T LIKE!!!

                1. I want Reason to censor disruptive and worthless content.
                  I don’t want Reason to censor reasoned and politely presented content even with views that I disagree with.
                  Which is by the way the position of virtually everyone who has private property.
                  You, being one of the aforementioned trolls, cannot have a constructive argument on this topic.

                  1. You could have just said ‘yes’.

                    You don’t get to decide what’s ‘worthless’ for everyone.

                    Learn, collectivist.

                  2. You don’t get to decide what’s ‘worthless’ for everyone.

                    I don’t, no. Reason certainly does, though, for its own property.

                    Does anyone here not know how to read? When I say “trolling and worthless content ought to be lightly moderated”, I am not claiming that *I* should be the censor, nor am I claiming that merely opinions I disagree with should be censored. Sheesh.

                    1. I don’t, no. Reason certainly does, though, for its own property.

                      And it has. Shut the fuck up and deal with it or go back to Bleeding Heart Libertarians and pass around a fresh tube of Preparation H.

                      By the way, be glad Reason has a light moderation policy, because you are literally the third biggest troll here right behind Shreek and Hihn.

                    2. If Reason thought I was a troll, they are free to ban me any time they wish.

                      Reason’s moderation policy is very light. The constructive discussions can sometimes be difficult to have with all of the spamming and trolling and shitposting.

                    3. “The constructive discussions can sometimes be difficult to have with all of the spamming and trolling and shitposting.”

                      No, the biggest impediment to constructive discussions are dishonest psychotics unwilling or unable to process information that doesn’t fit into their prejudiced perspective.
                      This thread is a great example.

                    4. Pedo Jeffy, unlike you, I do not need Reason to get rid of shitposters for me. I am happy to give you an ongoing beat down myself until even your dull little pederast mind finally sees the wisdom of leaving.

                      You do notice how hated you are, right? Even more than Tony, who is occasionally amusing in a clownish way. It isn’t just because we don’t lie your views. Your intellectual dishonesty, race baiting, endless sophism, and support of foreign child rapists are why you are so despised.

              2. “the spammers and the trolls and the shitposters””

                With Jeff, the guy Many people in this thread accuse of being a shit poster, being the arbiter.

                For freedom.

                (he actually admitted it lolololol!!! “

    2. Populism is rooted in the belief that there is an “in-group” which must be prioritized against the “out-groups”. The “in-groups” are the “real Americans”

      Correct. To the degree that the US government should act at all, it should act for the general welfare of the American people, i.e., all citizens of the US.

      while the “out-groups” are various levels of enemies that have to be defeated

      I don’t view foreigners or academics or any other group as “enemies”, I simply don’t want to be forced to pay taxes to subsidize advance their interests.

      1. I don’t view foreigners or academics or any other group as “enemies”, I simply don’t want to be forced to pay taxes to subsidize advance their interests.

        Then you’re not a nationalist. Which is a good thing IMO.

        1. Then you’re not a nationalist.

          Nationalism: 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.

          So, yes, I am a nationalist. I’m also a populist (I oppose government by elites) and libertarian (I want government to be limited to national defense, border protection, and a few other functions).

          Which is a good thing IMO.

          You, however, are a socialist, which is not a good thing. At. All.

          1. I would largely agree with that. I’m also a somewhat militant towards groups that are antagonists of our freedom, like progressives. Where tolerance of their beliefs puts our freedoms in peril.

          2. Good descriptions JW – I’m all aboard

  24. “What fuels populist politics is that concept of the people battling the elite.”

    This is the definition of populism. Everything else added to that definition simply changes the flavor of the populism we’re talking about. Whatever flavor of populism we’re talking about, we’re talking about people who believe they’re battling the elite for control of the government.

    Libertarianism is fundamentally anti-elitist on principle but it isn’t populist either. The thing that separates libertarians from the elitists is the elitist idea that experts in the government making choices for the people make better choices for the people than the people can make for themselves when they participate in markets.

    The populists imagine that if only the populists, rather than the elitists, were in charge of government policy, then the government would make better choices for the people than the elitists did–never really comprehending the libertarian fact that no government, no matter how connected to the people, can ever make better choices for the people than the people can make for themselves when they’re participating in markets.

    The thing a libertarian can do to undermine the appeal of populism is to support democracy–the will of the people–within its proper purview.

    1. “The populists imagine that if only the populists, rather than the elitists, were in charge of government policy, then the government would make better choices for the people than the elitists did”

      But now you’re simply adding a flavor here too.
      The choice to not do is equally a choice as the choice to do.
      Control can be used to prevent as well as to initiate

      1. I’m not sure what you’re going for here.

        If you’re suggesting that freedom is a zero sum game, where we necessarily need to choose between elitists in charge or populists in charge, I’m gonna dispute that.

        Right now there seems to be this debate raging, with the elitists who are angry with social media because they say social media isn’t doing enough to censor hate speech, etc. On the other side, the populists seem to imagine that someone is about to ride in and save us free speech for populists from the likes of social media.

        We necessarily need to choose between one or the other, right?

        No.

        The way things stand now, neither of those two groups can regulate speech from the seat of government. And when that’s the case, you know who’s in charge of what is and what isn’t censored?

        Ultimately it’s the consumers. We get to choose which services we use and which services we don’t. Fuck the elitists. Fuck the populists. I’ll just use consumer choice to exercise my freedom. The way things are now is exactly the way things should be.

    2. The populists imagine that if only the populists, rather than the elitists, were in charge of government policy, then the government would make better choices for the people

      Some populists may make that error. Other populists believe that elites should simply be out of power and that that government governs best that governs least.

      It’s you and the article who wants to lump together these different forms of populism under one phrase. That’s your problem and your error.

      1. “Some populists may make that error. Other populists believe that elites should simply be out of power and that that government governs best that governs least.”

        The whys can vary.

        Rallying the people against the elitists is what populism is all about. Find someone who wants to replace an elitist government with less government, and he call himself whatever he wants. If he wants to replace the government with less government, he may be a libertarian populist (indistinguishable from other libertarians on that point, really), but he’s still a populist. If he doesn’t also want to replace a populist government with less government, then he isn’t really libertarian at all. He’s just a populist.

    3. Libertarianism is fundamentally anti-elitist on principle

      AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      Yes, yes. As evidenced by the fact that it’s only proponents and practitioners are exorbitantly wealthy bored aristocrats.

      1. This observation is demonstrably false. Libertarian conventions and libertarian websites are full of non-wealthy, non-bored, non-aristocrats who are anti-elitist on principle–in that they believe elitist central planners will always fail at making choices for the idiot masses that are better than the choices the idiot masses make for themselves when they’re participating in markets. You just seem to be lashing out at the monocle wearing Monopoly man that lives in your head.

  25. What is the proper purview of democracy and why is it within those boundaries? The proper boundaries of democracy are well set in the Constitution, and the reason the boundaries are what they are is because when the government oversteps them, it necessarily makes the government authoritarian, elitist, and highly susceptible to populism. The libertarian response to both elitism and populism should be to guard those boundaries!

    The First Amendment, for instance, makes it abundantly clear with the statement, “Congress shall make no law” that democracy has no business regulating speech, religion, the press, or the right to assemble. Notice, the Constitution isn’t setting those boundaries so much as it’s recognizing them. Whether we’re talking about ancient Rome or modern China, when the government inflicts laws against speech on the people, society suffers the same chilling effects–regardless of whether there is a First Amendment.

    The same principle can be demonstrated with religion. It doesn’t matter whether we’re talking about the Holy Roman Emperor during the Thirty Years War or ISIS today, when the government controls what religion is legal, the religious populists and the religious elitists will fight each other, sometimes to the death, over which one of them gets to control the government. Notice, again, the First Amendment doesn’t establish this principle. It’s merely a boundary marker–crossing that boundary results in similar consequences to varying degrees across all cultures and throughout time.

    So far, I’ve been talking about the outer boundary of democracy’s proper purview, what the government can’t do without provoking populist reactions, but the same principle applies to inner boundaries–things in which democracy must be given free reign in order for society not to be authoritarian so as not to provoke a populist reaction. Again, the Constitution does a fairly good job of putting sign posts up on those boundaries–places where the democracy must be respected or society pays the price.

    Only an authoritarian government can inflict unpopular wars on the American people over their objections and against their will. Especially when conscription enters the picture, that kind of elitist oppression breeds the same kinds of populist revolts–across history and across cultures. That is why our Constitution requires the president to obtain a declaration of war from Congress. That is why declarations of war are well within in the proper purview of democracy.

    Immigration and naturalization are within the proper purview of democracy for the same reason. Because when the elitists, rather than the club members, decide who is and who isn’t in the club–over the objections of club members and against their will–it always leads to the same kinds of populist reactions across cultures and throughout history. Brexit is an excellent example of that principle at work. This is why Le Pen has done so well in France recently. This is why Merkel’s government is so wobbly. This is why the Italian government is the way it is. And, yeah, this a nice chunk of why Trump is the President of the United States.

    1. When I see libertarians arguing that democracy should be ignored within its proper purview because what the people want is stupid and wrong, it feels a bit like listening to central planners who can’t get past the fact that markets make better choices than central planners do–even though half the people participating in the market are of below average intelligence. It’s true that markets, unlike democracy, make people behave as if they were smarter than they are, and so where markets are often wrong where central planners fail, experts are often right about policy when popular opinion is wrong.

      Please understand, I’m not saying that markets and democracy are alike in every way. I’m saying that that they’re alike in one way: there are negative consequences that must be suffered when we interfere with both of them. We libertarians seem to understand that principle well when it comes to interfering in markets, but plenty of us seem to fail when it comes to our mission in policing and supporting the proper boundaries of democracy. That failure is the ultimate cause of populism.

      I’d feel some sympathy for those of you who imagine that elitism is necessary because achieving libertarian change through persuasion is futile or impossible when we’re dealing with average people, but that kind of elitist thinking is precisely the cause of the populism you’re bemoaning. On one hand, I’ve seen people change on gay marriage and recreational marijuana through persuasion. On the other hand, why should anybody sympathize with elitists who are shooting themselves in the foot with their elitism and then complaining about the resulting populism?

      1. “It’s true that markets, unlike democracy, make people behave as if they were smarter than they are, and so where markets are often wrong [right] where central planners fail, experts are often right about policy when popular opinion is wrong”

        —-Ken Shultz

        Fixed!

    2. Immigration and naturalization are within the proper purview of democracy for the same reason. Because when the elitists, rather than the club members, decide who is and who isn’t in the club–over the objections of club members and against their will–it always leads to the same kinds of populist reactions across cultures and throughout history.

      But “the club” here, in your metaphor, is not residency in the US, it is citizenship in the US.

      The proper purview of democracy here is *naturalization* – who gets to join the club – NOT *immigration* – who gets to move in next door to the club.

      If the proper purview of democracy is BOTH immigration and naturalization, then that is equivalent, again going with the metaphor, that the club’s members get to decide not only who is in the club, but who gets to live in the neighborhood of the club. This expansive view of democracy undermines private property rights, in that it gives the club’s members veto power over *everyone’s* decisions to use their property as they wish. That’s the real problem here.

      I don’t see how giving democracy control over immigration can be found consistent with a libertarian understanding of private property rights.

      1. If you restrict these immigrants to only your property, then fine, bring in thousands. But when they have access to commonly held spaces, the rest of the people get a say. It’s like a country club. You can put whatever you want in your locker. But if bees get out from the beehive you have in there, the other members can get rid of them – and you.

        1. I’d point out that setting the rules of naturalization includes the entire process of coming here, establishing residency, and becoming a citizen–because that’s the process of naturalization, however . . .

          In addition to everything else, ChemJeff seems to have completely missed the point that the negative consequences of overstepping the boundaries of the proper purview of democracy isn’t a result of the separation of powers or how they’re written in the Constitution. The separation of powers is simply a sign post.

          If there were a constitutional amendment against socialism, repealing it wouldn’t impact the negative consequences of socialism in any way whatsoever. The negative consequences of central planning would still be whatever they are–with or without the Constitution.

          Elitists inflicting unpopular immigration policies on the American people over their objections and against their will would still provoke a populist response even if there were no separation of powers and even if the Constitution did differentiate between immigration and naturalization. I made that point up above repeatedly. ChemJeff’s response is a red herring.

          But ChemJeff seems to be impervious to arguments. ChemJeff doesn’t seem to care whether he’s wrong or right or why. He just keeps repeating the same red herring loop.

          1. You are right in one sense, Ken, that going against the demands of the mob means suffering the wrath of the mob, and it may be that the demands of a wrathful mob are a lot more severe than the demands of a peaceful mob.

            Nevertheless, no matter how many times the mob wants to infringe upon people’s liberties, libertarians of all people should be at the vanguard shouting no. It could be that libertarians are unpersuasive in telling the mob that they shouldn’t be infringing upon people’s liberties. But we shouldn’t give up without a fight. If we give in to liberty-infringing behavior out of fear that the mob will do worse if we don’t give in, then that is just a total surrender.

            1. “Nevertheless, no matter how many times the mob wants to infringe upon people’s liberties”

              You called for Reason to censor people you stupid lying hypocritical fuck.

              “libertarians of all people should be at the vanguard shouting no”

              Unless it is censoring people, in which case you have actively REQUESTED IT.

              You’re fucking trash Jeff. You have all the principles of other progressives, which is to say, none except seeking what you want.

            2. You don’t have a right to post on Reason’s comment boards. You and I both are guests on their property.

              I am absolutely in favor of private individuals exercising their private property rights and censoring views on their property that they do not wish to be associated with. Aren’t you?

              1. “You don’t have a right to post on Reason’s comment boards. You and I both are guests on their property.”

                Which has EXACTLY FUCK ALL TO DO WITH MY POST.

                YOU CALLED FOR CENSORSHIP. YOU AREN’T REASON. SO STOP HIDING BEHIND PROPERTY RIGHTS YOU DON’T HAVE.

                1. Which has EXACTLY FUCK ALL TO DO WITH MY POST.

                  Well, you claimed this:

                  “Nevertheless, no matter how many times the mob wants to infringe upon people’s liberties”

                  You called for Reason to censor people you stupid lying hypocritical fuck.

                  implying that private censorship on private property was an infringement of anyone’s liberties. It isn’t. There is no right to use someone else’s private property for your speech against the will of the property owner.

                  YOU CALLED FOR CENSORSHIP. YOU AREN’T REASON. SO STOP HIDING BEHIND PROPERTY RIGHTS YOU DON’T HAVE.

                  I did not claim a right to be the censor myself. I asked for Reason to exercise their property rights in this manner.

                  1. “implying”

                    Stop right there shitposter.

                    As has been made VERY clear tto you, you assume the worst of your opponents.

                    Shove what you think I implied up your ass.

                    “that private censorship on private property was an infringement of anyone’s liberties. It ISN’T”

                    ESPECIALLY SINCE YOU GOT IT WRONG. Again. That WAS NOT What I SAID, nor meant.

                    God you’re so fucking stupid.

                    1. Fine, have it your way. What precisely is your position on the issue of private individuals censoring content on their private property that the owners do not wish to be associated with?

                    2. Do you believe there is a right to post on Reason’s comment boards? If Reason did decide to censor you, or me, from their comment boards, would your (or my) rights have been violated?

                    3. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?

                      ” There is no right to use someone else’s private property for your speech against the will of the property owner.”

                    4. That they should do it in the case of demonstrable safety issues, or things that violate the law.

                      Not for people I don’t like.

                      You on the other hand clearly want them to engage in censorship of “the spammers and the trolls and the shitposters” because the add elements you dont like.

                      You’re attempting to insist that others behave and conduct themselves to a standard YOU agree with, or you want them banned. That’s not espousing any rights, it is just cowardice.

                      What is ABSOLUTELY FASCINATING is that you have so little awareness that you don’t realize, you, who have been banned from other sites, are being told IN THIS THREAD that you are a shitposter. Many people said it.

                      So you’re so fucking stupid unselfaware that you don’t realize, that while I would probably get banned by you metrics, YOUR ASS WOULDN’T BE FAR BEHIND.

                    5. “” There is no right to use someone else’s private property for your speech against the will of the property owner.”

                      You’re not the property owner, so shut the fuck up with that stupidity.

                    6. Wow, so we actually agree on something. You do acknowledge that Reason has a right to censor content on its comment boards. I agree with that. You think they should only use this right in a very small number of circumstances. I think it should be a little bit broader than that. Neither one of us thinks that Reason should be censoring content SOLELY on political views.

                      I am aware that YOU call me a shitposter, but I don’t particularly care about your opinion of me. I am confident that my contribution to the discourse here is of a higher caliber than yours.

                    7. Oh and by the way. You and I both acknowledge the right of a private property owner to censor content on his/her own private property that the owner doesn’t want to be associated with.

                      The Warrenite progressives don’t agree with that. The Hawleyite nationalists, and their boot-lickers like Jesse, don’t agree with that.

                      So instead of jumping down my throat about CENSORSHIP!!!, maybe you should direct some of your consternation elsewhere.

                    8. “I think it should be a little bit broader than that”

                      The day Tulpa made Jeff look unprincipled.

                    9. “So instead of jumping down my throat about CENSORSHIP!!!, maybe you should direct some of your consternation elsewhere.”

                      No cunt, you offered an unsolicited opinion on censoring people you don’t like.

                      I’m right on target kicking you for that.

                    10. The Hawleyite nationalists, and their boot-lickers like Jesse, don’t agree with that.

                      Tech companies who are presently receiving a special dispensation from liability are more than welcome to continue exercising arbitrary deplatforming in violation of their own terms of service under Hawley’s proposal. They just lose the special dispensation. To make it an even more level playing field, we could just take away the special dispensation entirely instead of dangling it out there in exchange for neutrality. But something tells me that wouldn’t really suit you either, would it?

                    11. So “special dispensation” = “not held liable for defamatory/illegal content that they had no role in creating”, is that it?

                      Is it “special dispensation” if I am not arrested for my neighbor’s crimes?

                  2. I asked for Reason to exercise their property rights in this manner.

                    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

                    Like when you get invited to a dinner party, stand up in the middle of the meal, pull down your trousers, take a shit in the middle of the table, and then ask the host to dismiss the rest of the guests.

                    Demanding someone else exercise their property rights in a manner consistent with your expectations makes you not only an authoritarian asshole, but also a colossal passive-aggressive pussy.

                2. By the way jeffo, I don’t want to forget nor allow you to forget,

                  “implying that private censorship on private property was an infringement of anyone’s liberties. It isn’t. There is no right to use someone else’s private property for your speech against the will of the property owner”

                  THAT was wrong. It almost always is with you, when you assume what other mean.

                  Which you do constantly, and NEVER go back to offer a mea culpa for. The best we ever get is an “explanation” of why you were right in assuming the worst about people’s motves and then putting words in their mouth.

                  How many times and from how many people do you have to hear that before you give it any credence?

                  1. I gave a good-faith interpretation of what I thought you meant.
                    And frankly I think you really did mean that in the moment, and when I called you out on it, are now using some lame pretext of “oh that’s not what I really meant because I didn’t use those exact words” as one of your typical trolling devices.

                    This is what I wrote:

                    “Nevertheless, no matter how many times the mob wants to infringe upon people’s liberties”

                    This is what you wrote in response:

                    You called for Reason to censor people you stupid lying hypocritical fuck.

                    Which certainly does seem like you are implying that you think PRIVATE censorship on PRIVATE property is “an infringement of people’s liberties”. Otherwise, how could it be “hypocritical” or “lying” to be opposed to the mob infringing on liberties, when Reason censoring on its private property wouldn’t be an infringement of anyone’s liberty in the first place? I called you out on it, and then because you can never back down from any argument or admit you were wrong about anything, you double-down and claim that isn’t what you really meant even though it very likely was at the time.

                    1. Tedious little pederast.

              2. “Aren’t you?”

                No you tyrannical fuck, I am not in fact terrified of speech like you are.

                1. So your position is, you do not believe private individuals should have the right to use their private property to censor views they don’t wish to be associated with on their property?

                  1. No dumbfuck, my position is I am not in fact terrified of speech like you are.

                    1. Do you believe private individuals ought to have the right to censor content on their private property that they do not wish to be associated with?

                    2. I don’t know how his parents didn’t smother him in his crib.

        2. But when they have access to commonly held spaces, the rest of the people get a say.

          Well, this is I suppose how one regards the status of “public property”.

          If you regard “public property” as property that is literally owned by the citizens, then yes, the proper way to decide on rules for the use of that public property is to hold a vote. However, this can’t be the case, because I do not have the legal right to sell or transfer my ‘ownership’ stake in public lands; I can’t sell my portion of the Washington Monument. Furthermore, this formulation of public property leads to the pretty horrible result that the voters may decide to use their power over public property to restrict people’s liberties. For example, suppose the voting public in a town decided that no guns are permitted on public property, not even public roads. That would be problematic, to say the least.

          Another way to look at public property, which is what I favor, is to regard public property as owned by the state itself, as a separate entity, but only *in trust*, so long as the state is serving its primary mission of protecting people’s liberties. After all that is the *entire reason* why libertarians support the existence of a state in the first place, and aren’t full-blown anarchists. So the people don’t own public lands, the state owns public lands. Yes, the people have “a say” in how the state decides to use public lands, but the state ultimately has the final call, and the state is obligated not to use its power to use public lands as a weapon for infringing on liberty, even if that is what the public wants to see happen. Since I regard freedom of association as a fundamental liberty, then the state is obliged to respect and protect that liberty via its management of public property.

          1. Just say that you look at what the term ‘public property’ means in America incorrectly.

            It’s more accurate.

            1. So if the “correct” viewpoint of public property in America means that every individual citizen is a co-owner in the property, why can’t I sell or transfer my property interest in the Washington Monument? Aren’t I a part owner in it?

              1. So if the “correct” viewpoint of public property in America means that every individual citizen is a co-owner in the property, why can’t I sell or transfer my property interest in the Washington Monument?

                Who says you can’t?

                Go ahead. Sell your 1/330,000,000th share in anything you want. Have at it.

                1. It’s not legally possible, because I don’t have any title or proof of ownership of this property. That is because I don’t actually own it like I could own any other type of real property.

                  1. Too much of a statist to sell your own property without permission from your masters?

                    Sounds like a personal problem, Jeff.

            2. Generally, I don’t waste time reading ChemJeff’s comments–especially when he’s playing some stupid word game.

              Rights are the obligation to respect other people’s choices–and that extends to property rights, too. When something is your property, it means that you’re the one that gets to choose who gets to use something and when, how, and if something is used. This quality of property has also withstood scrutiny across myriad cultures and throughout history.

              Even Native American groups that supposedly didn’t under the c concept of property the way we do understood it well enough when people started using their property without their permission. When a private individual violates your property rights, it’s called things like “trespassing” and “theft”. If ChemJeff is talking about the government being the only one who gets to make choices about the use of property, then what’s the point of playing ChemJeff’s word games and calling it “property” anymore?

              There aren’t any property rights associated with things that aren’t owned by anyone–and everything gets fucked up in those situations. See the Soviet Union and the tragedy of the commons for examples. ChemJeff’s foolish ideas were demonstrated to be false over the course of the 20th century. Maduro and ChemJeff don’t even seem to understand the underlying principles–which were laid out in the 18th century. He’s dumber than a creationist in his own way.

              1. If ChemJeff is talking about the government being the only one who gets to make choices about the use of property

                No, that is not what I’m saying. I am saying that what is regarded as “public property” should be regarded as owned by the state. Private property is still private and I am absolutely in favor of protecting private property rights.

          2. Another way to look at public property, which is what I favor, is to regard public property as owned by the state itself, as a separate entity, but only *in trust*, so long as the state is serving its primary mission of protecting people’s liberties.

            And to protect my liberties and interests, the state needs to protect US borders. Simple as that.

            1. Sure, I’m all in favor of the state protecting the border from foreign invasion from a hostile military force.

              But I don’t regard peaceful immigration to be an “invasion”, and prohibiting peaceful immigration is an infringement on the freedom of association.

              1. But I don’t regard peaceful immigration to be an “invasion”

                If it violates US laws, it’s not “peaceful immigration” but illegal migration. If you don’t want it to be illegal, change the laws.

                Right now, you are advocating for selective enforcement and lawlessness and that is unacceptable.

                1. If it violates US laws, it’s not “peaceful immigration” but illegal migration.

                  If US laws criminalize freedom of association, then it’s the laws that are wrong. Should unjust laws be enforced?

                  1. Should unjust laws be enforced?

                    Yes, unjust laws should be enforced; selective enforcement, as you propose, amounts to lawlessness and corruption.

                    1. No. Liberty is higher than the law.

                      When the law is wrong, it is our duty to disobey the law.

                      “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” — MLK

                    2. And MLK and those with him suffered the consequences of disobeying unjust laws – which is precisely what you wish to avoid, because your a progressive who doesn’t believe in responsibility and is too weak for self ownership

                2. Well JW fuck your belief that laws are laws.

                  The Nurenburg laws were laws. Slavery was legal.

                  I am a radical libertarian. Rolled right through a stop sign today.

                  1. I am a radical libertarian.

                    Libertarians want to abolish bad laws. Simply ignoring bad laws selectively does not amount to abolishing them. In fact, the end result of what you advocate is a police state.

                  2. If ticketed, would you pay the fine?
                    If pulled over, would you shoot the cop?
                    Fuck your empty grandstanding

              2. There are few infringements of freedom I’d like to tackle before immigration.

                1. A FEW
                  Stupid no edit crappy Reason comments!

                2. Well sure. But immigration is the cause du jour I suppose.

          3. Yes, the people have “a say” in how the state decides to use public lands, but the state ultimately has the final call, and the state is obligated not to use its power to use public lands as a weapon for infringing on liberty, even if that is what the public wants to see happen. Since I regard freedom of association as a fundamental liberty, then the state is obliged to respect and protect that liberty via its management of public property.

            Lol. Jesus tapdancing fucking Christ bro. You can’t even keep a hold of your own logic.

            1. “A say” does not mean “absolute veto power over people’s individual liberties who use the public property”.

              “A say” means, should a public road be a 2-lane road, or a 4-lane road? But “a say” does not mean “people driving on the road may not transport guns”. See the difference?

      2. I don’t see how giving democracy control over immigration can be found consistent with a libertarian understanding of private property rights.

        You are correct: giving democracy control over immigration is not consistent with a libertarian understanding of private property rights.

        But we live in a progressive social democracy right now; democracy has control over just about every aspect of our lives. That’s why libertarian principles simply cannot be used to analyze the society we live in.

        You keep reasoning as if you believe that when you change one aspect of a progressive social democracy to nominally conform to better to libertarian principles, you end up moving society overall closer to libertarian ideals. But that’s a fallacy.

        1. So your answer is, just give up on liberty? May the best tribe win?

          1. So your answer is, just give up on liberty? May the best tribe win?

            No, my answer is to move towards a libertarian society by actually changing laws through the political process that we have.

            Your answer is to attempt to move towards a libertarian society through executive dictates, lawlessness, and cronyism, and not worry about who you are screwing in the process.

            1. He wants to screw small children in the process.

        2. “You are correct: giving democracy control over immigration is not consistent with a libertarian understanding of private property rights.”

          This is like saying that war is inconsistent with property rights, which is absurd.

          If government has any legitimate purpose, it’s to protect our rights. We have police to protect our rights from criminals. We have courts to protect our rights from the police. We have a military to protect our rights from foreign threats. Making rules about who can and can’t enter our territory isn’t inconsistent with any of that. In fact, it may be a necessary part of the government’s legitimate purpose in protecting our rights from foreign threats. That’s as libertarian as anything needs to be. You might disagree with the rules, the policy, and the way it’s implemented, but to say that the government setting those rules so as to protect our rights is inconsistent with libertarianism is both wrong and absurd.

          Again, this is like saying that no war can ever be consistent with libertarianism. Not all wars are defensive in nature and in opposition to foreign invasions, but they can be.

          1. We have police to protect our rights from criminals. We have courts to protect our rights from the police. We have a military to protect our rights from foreign threats. Making rules about who can and can’t enter our territory isn’t inconsistent with any of that.

            The bolded “our territory” is part of the controversy. When it comes to my private property, then the answer is no, the public shouldn’t get to decide who can enter or exit my private property. When it comes to public property, then the answer is, the state should decide, with consultation from the people, but the state’s mandate is to respect the rights of all people. So the state should not decide on rules for public property which violate people’s rights. Just like it would be wrong for the state to ban assemblies on public property, because it would violate the right to freedom of assembly, even if the public wanted to do so; it would be wrong for the state to violate the right to ban immigrants from public property, because it would violate the right to freedom of association, even if the public wanted to do so.

            1. When it comes to my private property, then the answer is no, the public shouldn’t get to decide who can enter or exit my private property.

              But the public already does, in many different ways. And the public has the power to decide who enters the country as well.

              It’s fine to say that you want to change that; go ahead and try to advance legislation to do so.

              But you’re supporting simple lawlessness by implying that government should not enforce some duly enacted laws. And you’re inconsistent about it too, because I don’t hear you pushing strongly for the idea that people can stop paying taxes without consequences. You’re obsessed with an obscure and harmful issue, namely illegal migration, to the virtual exclusion of all the massive violations of rights we experience every day.

              1. But the public already does, in many different ways.

                SHOULD the public dictate who may or may not enter or exit my private property? If so, on what basis?

                1. Will they teleport there?
                  Or will they cross other people’s property?
                  Will you confine them to just your property until they teleport outside the country?
                  Do you even own your property or do you rent it?

          2. Ok Ken

            Who can and cannot enter “our territory”?

            1. Just because Congress authorized a foolish war that I oppose doesn’t mean the power to declare war doesn’t properly belong to Congress or that I should pretend otherwise. It’s the same thing with immigration and naturalization. Because we want Congress to choose open borders and Congress doesn’t, for the time being, that doesn’t mean the power to set those rules doesn’t properly belong to Congress.

              As I wrote elsewhere, democracy doesn’t always come up with the right answer, but interfering with democracy in its proper purview comes with steep costs, like a surge in populism, that pushes our desire for things like more open borders even further out of reach. Let’s not ignore reality. From France to Italy and from the UK to the USA, the rise in anti-immigration populism is in no small part a reaction to unpopular immigration policies being inflicted on the voters over their objections and against their will.

          3. This is like saying that war is inconsistent with property rights, which is absurd.

            It depends on what kind of libertarian you are; there are libertarians who would say that.

            What I’m saying is that if you live in an anarcho-capitalist version of libertarianism, then immigration restrictions and wars are both inconsistent with property rights (however, there would be state-like private entities fulfilling similar function). I’m assuming that’s the position Chemjeff is arguing from.

            In a more moderate form of libertarianism, I agree, of course, that the state has the power to control immigration and declare war.

  26. I wonder what the author thinks of the American Revolution and the rise of populist demagogues that swayed the people away from their proper place as subjects of the British government.

    1. And that democracy, man. That system of government is constantly letting the little man have a say in how his affairs are ordered, leaving an opening for populists to exploit.

    2. Anti-authoritarian populists? I don’t think anyone would mistake the founding fathers for the authoritarians of today.

      1. The problem I was highlighting here is that the author *conflates* authoritarianism with populism. Or, rather, is saying that all people appealing to the masses are just stoking the prejudices of the uneducated masses in order to further their own power.

        Populism has been around for a long time – its been used by powermongers to gain personal power and by others to increase freedom. To reflexively dismiss appeals to the masses in this way is to concede that the masses are not suitable for self-rule.

        1. Agammamon
          July.14.2019 at 4:47 pm
          “The problem I was highlighting here is that the author *conflates* authoritarianism with populism. Or, rather, is saying that all people appealing to the masses are just stoking the prejudices of the uneducated masses in order to further their own power.”

          Yeah, it seems the presumed definition here is entirely too flexible.

      2. I don’t think anyone would mistake the founding fathers for the authoritarians of today.

        At the time, would they really have been able to tell the difference?

  27. Interesting, Tom P., but I’m not convinced of two critical things: that populism, or authoritarian populism, is actually increasing of late; nor that populism itself is more conducive to authoritarianism than are other widespread -isms.

    1. In fact, I think we can have as much libertarianism against a populist background as against any other. I see as much opportunity to promote individual liberty when the polity is populist as there is to promote oppression under the same condition.

      1. Populism gone amok is literal mob rule. That is authoritarianism, not liberty.

        Libertarianism requires a belief that the mob should not always get its way, when the mob is demanding to infringe upon the rights of individuals. Populism by definition subsumes the interests of the individual in favor of the interests of the collective.

        1. “Populism gone amok is literal mob rule. That is authoritarianism, not liberty.”

          Again, Jeff assumes he gets to arbitrate what words mean.

        2. Total authority vested in a ruling class is authoritarianism run amok, not liberty also.

          Populism by definition subsumes the interests of the individual in favor of the interests of the collective.

          It can. Authoritarianism can do the same thing. Libertarianism requires the belief that at times the mob should get its way, when the state is demanding to infringe on the rights of individuals.

          1. Total authority vested in a ruling class is authoritarianism run amok, not liberty also.

            I agree.

            Libertarianism requires the belief that at times the mob should get its way, when the state is demanding to infringe on the rights of individuals.

            Also, I agree. Which is why we can’t go too far in either direction. Not too much mob rule, not too much oligarchy either.

            1. Not too much mob rule, not too much oligarchy either.

              Yet somehow we always seem to have just enough oligarchy and the encroachments of too much mob rule are always on the horizon.

              God your’e tiresome.

          2. But right now I think the bigger danger comes from populist tendencies, because populism is having a moment.

            1. Are you serious? With 50% of the US economy due to government activity? With people not being allowed to fart without violating a government regulation? With “elites” telling us that the world is going to end unless we stop burning fossil fuels, demanding reparations, demanding “equal pay”, promoting Keynesianism and Modern Monetary Theory? With all that you think our problem is too much populism?

            2. Hey, what a coincidence, just like you did 3 years ago when you were still using your original handle and predicting the certainty of a Hillary Clinton victory. Lol. You’re such a chump.

              1. The really sad part about you is that you will never climb the social ranks and be part of the cohort to which you aspire. Like Hamilton, you adore the aristocracy of which you are doomed by birth to never become a member. It’d be sad if it wasn’t so unbelievably fucking funny.

            3. Its having a moment because of the actions of the entrenched ruling class. Its a backlash.

              Fighting against the people because they’re lashing out at those who desire to rule them isn’t the answer.

  28. […] Tom Palmer has a strong article in Reason for August-September 2019, “The Terrifying Rise of Authoritarian Populism: Envy and resentment are driving collectivist impulses….” […]

  29. Pressing 2 for Spanish is practically worse than slavery.

    1. Shitbag here is trying to make a funny.

      1. Believe it or not, I have borne witness to some rather vitriolic discussions on this issues of Pressing 2 for Spanish. Like, on the order of “it ought to be illegal”. Of course accompanied by demands that English be made the official national language.

        Tony is trying to make a funny, but the whole Press 2 thing is a real issue to some.

        1. “Tony is trying to make a funny, but the whole Press 2 thing is a real issue to some.”

          To Misek, the jooze were the cause of WWI and WWII, but no one tries to generalize that idiocy here.
          Tony should be making that funny where it has some validity, not proving himself an idiot by proposing it here.

          1. Jews. There are no jooze.

            1. “Jews. There are no jooze.”
              You think Misek knows the difference?

          2. Yeah misek is an antisemite.

            When you are Jewish you find them, they find you more often.

            You are right nobody here gives him the time of day.

            Old joke.

            George Bush is frustrated he summons his closest Jewish advisor.

            “How come these Jews seem to know everything before I do and be one step ahead of me?”

            The advisor says “I will tell you. On Friday night they show up to the shul. One guy says to another “nu?” The other says “nu?” Then they talk.

            So Bush says “show me how to do that”

            He does, shows him how to interact and seem and look Jewish at the services.

            The president sits down at the service and turns to the guy next to him and says “Nu?”

            The guy says “shush, I heard Bush was coming”.

            Bada boom.

        2. Of course accompanied by demands that English be made the official national language.

          A “national language” means “all government and legal business is to be transacted in English”, just like we have “all government and legal standards are required to use this system of measures / comply with these regulations / …”.

          What’s your objection to government setting standards for how citizens interact with government?

          1. I’m fairly certain Spanish language options are mandated, but you won’t see Jeff objecting to that regulation

    2. Either you’ve badly screwed up a joke or you’ve plainly stated your position on immigration.

      Given its you, I can’t tell which.

      1. Well, it inconveniences white people in the mildest possible way, so by definition it is worse than chattel slavery of brown people. Don’t you Republican?

        1. Shitbag here needs help carrying his strawman.

        2. Well, it inconveniences white people in the mildest possible way

          True, anything that inconveniences white people tends to be pretty bad for society as a whole.

  30. BTW, you’ll notice that this article has Trump as a ‘populist’, while the Marianne Williamson article has him as a ‘spiritualist’.
    Either the guy is amazingly versatile or the authors have to weave Trump somewhere into the narrative in order to be published.

    1. Reason went off the deep end during Trump’s election and has never made it back to the swimming pool ladder. Probably because the writers here are mostly a mix of left-wing open border activists and DC cocktail party hangers-on.

      Both crowds hate Trump, so folks have to bash him to maintain their internal consistency. Admitting they’re wrong about someone would be an abnegation of everything they’ve told other people they believe.

      1. I’d guess they simply took off the mask, but I’ve only been coming here for a year and a half

  31. Trying to divide humanity into taxpayers and tax eaters, as if there were some easy way in a modern society to distinguish the two groups neatly and unambiguously, feeds into populist hatred and rage.

    Ah, but there’s a set of people for whom this determination is easy: all politicians & bureaucrats who get their income from the State (i.e. out of taxes) is a net tax consumer by necessity, as no one pays more in taxes than one’s income.

    1. Many of those people have more sources of income other than the paycheck from that dayjob. Whether *honestly* or not . . . but a lot of them are making more from ‘investment’ income than personal income.

      The easy way to tell though is – how much, after refund, did you pay in taxes. How much did Uncle Sam Keep. Now subtract the direct subsidies you received. Did you pay as much or more than you got back in subsidies? Then you’re cool. Did you not? Then you better be in one of the government jobs that are actually doing what the government is supposed to be doing.

  32. younger people supporting liberal cosmopolitanism

    Helicopters await, commies.

  33. “ If you keep seeing everyone as an enemy, then enemies are all you’re gonna find.”

    Tara TWD

  34. I earned $5000 last month by working online just for 5 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. If You too want to earn such a big money then come and join us.

    CLICK HERE►► payhd.com

  35. This doesn’t sound like the description of a movement. It sounds like a parody painted by people who don’t like the movement.

  36. So what you’re saying is… Orange Man Bad? Please tell me more, where can I sign up for your newsletter?

  37. Here is a much simpler explanation for the 11% who switched from Obama to Trump: They are the men who have been traumatized by custody court.

  38. Reason comments have long since been taken over by the authoritarian populists. Reason tried to embrace them, and now 95% of the comments on every article are by them. I wonder if Reason ever considers how they embraced right-wing authoritarian populism in order to ‘expand their appeal’ and how it has cost them.

    1. Go away commie traitor.

    2. Yeah, Reason pushing big government bans (single family zoning) and mandates…affordable housing and homeless housing on the highest land values in the world is real libertarianism.
      Fuck off, slaver.

  39. “If you put right-wing populism against left populism, right-wing populism will win.” – Tony Blair

  40. Tom Palmer is a typical establishment loosertarian who doesn’t want his cushy jobs at think tanks disturbed because it would disrupt his cash cow. Never mind, of course, that Republicans took over Congress for the first time in fifty years in 1994 largely due to the GOP campaigning on populist themes. The same could also be said about Ronald Reagan when he defeated Jimmy Carter.

    Go back to your ivory tower in DC, Palmer, no one buys your tripe!

  41. Populism is the opposite of a central planning latin american socialist collective rationing welfare state.

  42. Populism is built on violence, specifically the initiation of violence, threats thereof. Remove the “faith in force”, replace it with reason, rights, choice, and populism disappears.

    The goal of the violence is irrelevant. It is a distraction that disappears when political power is centralized. Then, it’s just power for power’s sake. It’s all against all, species suicide.

  43. Because of course, if you are a so-called “normal everyday hardworking American” that supposedly believes in “self-reliance” and “hard work and improving your own lot in life” and wants “small government” and thinks the “coastal elites” and “Hollywood types” are ruining everything, OF COURSE the natural response is to dig in, refuse to adapt and update your skills, then elect a silver spoon-born, rich Manhattan real estate developer fresh off a TV show career and hope for him to use government power to save your coal-mining job. Did I miss anything?

  44. […] her back!” is hardly the only sign we should give Orwell’s caution heed anew. The authoritarian populism which fueled Trump’s rise to power; state surveillance capabilities that remained the stuff […]

  45. All this is in history. Hitler was right and left at the same time, just consider the name : National-Socialism (Nazi)
    When in a country all paid hand-work disappear (transfered to cheaper place) you get millions of people unhappy, people without high education. So they get the most direct solution for happyness, i.e. national+socialism, or the believe so!
    And of course some clever guys take profit of it. And use strength as soon as they can. Then, no exit except war, civil war or external.

  46. […] The great Tom Palmer warns of the terrifying rise of authoritarian populism. A slice: […]

  47. […] **Bu yazı Reason Dergisinin Ağustos/Eylül 2019 sayısında yayıyınlanmıştır ve  Deniz Karakullukçu tarafından çevrilmiştir. Yazının orijinal versiyonunun linki: https://reason.com/2019/07/14/the-terrifying-rise-of-authoritarian-populism/ […]

  48. Idiotic articles like THIS are why people are pissed in the first place.

    You’re clearly so retarded you don’t even see the REAL concerns people have.

    Almost every country in Europe is set to be a white minority population sometime between 30-80 years, depending on the nation. Elitist politicians are telling people not to worry about becoming a minority in THEIR OWN FUCKING HOMELANDS, because that would be racist. Even though the foreigners have no respect for their cultures, their way of life, made demands of them in THEIR countries, etc. Regular people are the ones who live in neighborhoods where they suffer from the crime and other problems of all the low skill/savage refugees/immigrants, not the politicians. Hence much of the disconnect.

    That shit is REAL dude. I’m from Cali. I watched entire cities go to shit as they were overrun by low education illegal (and legal) immigrants. My home town was like Mayberry when my dad grew up there… And pretty decent when I was young… It’s a shit hole now, and it’s all because of WHO lives there now vs WHO lived there back in the day. People aren’t stupid. They see the changes, see things go to shit, and connect the dots.

    White Americans will be a minority sooner than most countries in Europe, despite being 85-90% of the US population for most of the history of the country up until the 1965 immigration act. And minorities are demanding we pay for tons of free shit for them, 5 seconds after they land here… And destroy our history (statues, rewriting text books, etc), whining about everything under the sun, made up claims of racism, etc.

    In other words they’re shitting on the people who were kind enough (and dumb enough) to let them into THEIR country. It’s BULLSHIT. See Rep. Omar for a perfect example of what it wrong with many immigrants.

    Anyway, people like you are too stupid and utopian to even realize that most of the problems we see today are BECAUSE your utopian policies were NEVER going to work. The sooner you accept reality and human nature for what they are, the sooner we can set about resolving the issues. Most right wing populists are the tip of the spear in returning the western world back to being sanely run, even if they have some bad policies thrown in the mix.

    I really think the main reason the elite (Or even upper middle class people) is blind on this stuff is because they don’t interact with the world the way normal people do… If they’re ever around an immigrant it’s when they’re serving them ethnic food and being nice for a tip, or it’s another highly paid white collar immigrant who isn’t dysfunctional… They don’t actually live in the shit storm they’ve created. They see the short term benefits, but are blind to the long term implications… But they will get them too eventually. When their grandkids are beat to shit by some ethnic gang because they’re white, and not allowed into college because they’re white, when they’re forced to pay for a bunch of programs that only benefit minorities, etc… They will finally see the costs, but by then it will be too late.

    This shit needs to get back on track NOW. The USA is really already too late without splitting the country up, but Europe is still easily savable. Utopians: Pull your heads out of your asses!

    1. To put it another way, true believers in ABSOLUTIST classical liberalism or libertarianism are just like communists…

      You refuse to see that where your ideology takes you on some issues simply fails to function in reality, no matter how fuzzy wuzzy it sounds on paper. 99% libertarian with 1% carve outs on a few issues would create as perfect as world as is possible… But for some reason the mainstream libertarian think tanks and publications are doubling down on the 1% of BAD ideas harder than anything else even while they’re proving their failures daily.

  49. Lagasabungayamonline which is the Indonesian Soccer Agent, cockfight and Betting Site which also provides Live Agent SBOBET games that use graphic technology and a satisfying display. For football news, guides on how to play gambling, up-to-date information about football and also accurate ball predictions that are updated every day. It has become our motto to provide the best for all our members with a deposit and withdrawal process in less than 3 minutes and very fast.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.