Donald Trump

The Last Few Days Exemplify Why I'm Libertarian (and Why You Should Be Too)

The political extremism of Donald Trump, democratic socialists, and others is a great argument for reducing the size and scope of politics in everyday life.


Things are getting uglier by the second in American politics and the sheer awfulness of the current moment perfectly illustrates why I'm libertarian. Do you really want to live in a world where you're constantly living inside either Donald Trump's mind or that of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's (D–N.Y.) democratic socialist "squad"?

Our lives are too short, too fleeting, too important to spend all of our waking hours engaged in the systematic organization of hatreds, which is as good a working definition of politics as there is. There's ultimately not a lot of wiggle room between Trumpian conservatism, which demands complete reverence for the Donald and includes bolder and bolder threats to stifle free speech along with free trade, and Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Dealism, which explicitly uses the totalist regimentation of all aspects of American life during World War II as its model. If I wanted to deal with politics all the time, I'd move to a totalitarian country already.

Libertarians are not anarchists but believers in limited government. Certain rights cannot be voted away but we believe that there are areas of life where consensus legitimately rules and that policy should be set by the group rather than the individual. Precisely because politics is a form of force and coercion, though, the parts of our lives governed by consensus should be as small as possible, limited to essential services such as basic infrastructure, law enforcement, safety standards, welfare for the indigent, and some education. The government should treat all people as individuals and all individuals as equal before the law. Over the years, I've become less dogmatic about exactly how little or how much the state should do, preferring instead to talk about libertarian as an adjective or a pre-political sensibility, "an outlook that privileges things such as autonomy, open-mindedness, pluralism, tolerance, innovation, and voluntary cooperation over forced participation in as many parts of life as possible."

Where you and I will draw those lines will likely differ depending on a variety of things and, by all means, let's have fierce yet civil debates over the scope and efficacy of specific policies and actions. But let's also avoid the shit show currently on display. Leading the parade of fools is, of course, President Trump, whose recent tweets are not simply racist or in poor taste but deeply un-American.

Where exactly does he get off telling people that if they don't like everything about the United States, they should leave? That only one of the four Democratic representatives he was originally attacking was actually born in a foreign country underscores his lack of cognitive functioning and the deep-seated nativism of his mindset. Even if you're born here, he's saying, you're not really American unless you look like him.

More importantly, Trump's aggressively banal jingoism stands in direct and obvious contradiction to the origins of the United States, both as colonial havens populated by religious dissenters and people seeking economic opportunity, and later as a breakaway republic from an oppressive government. "Our Country is Free, Beautiful and Very Successful. If you hate our Country, or if you are not happy here, you can leave," the president counseled today, as if exit is the only legitimate option when it comes to lobbying for political change.

If he read books, I'd suggest that Trump pick up a copy of Albert O. Hirschman's 1970 treatise on "responses to declines in firms, organizations, and states." Exit, Voice, and Loyalty discusses the different ways individuals can effect change. Leaving to go elsewhere—exit—is indeed an option, but so is basically sucking it up and becoming an uncritical organization man (loyalty), or complaining and working to change the system (voice). Trump's basic argument is reductio ad Archie Bunkerism—love it or leave it. It's not worth engaging seriously and indeed, the only reason he isn't being more roundly mocked is that he's wrapped his dumb canard in ugly, divisive language that participates in long traditions of racial and ethnic exclusion.

By the same token, the Ocasio-Cortez squad offers no hope of escaping politics, either. Instead, it seeks to fully regulate expression in the name of political purposes. One of its members, Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D–Mass.), effectively channels Trump's "you're with us or against us" mindset when she declares, "We don't need any more brown faces that don't want to be a brown voice. We don't need black faces that don't want to be a black voice. We don't need Muslims that don't want to be a Muslim voice. We don't need queers that don't want to be a queer voice."

The unwillingness of Ocasio-Cortez to acknowledge good-faith disagreements even with her political allies—she's accused Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) of "explicitly singling out newly elected women of color," insinuating that the Democratic Speaker of the House is racist like the president—is a tactic used by Trump and his supporters.

This is politics at its absolute worst. It helps explain why the long-term trend of Americans refusing to identify as a Democrat or a Republican proceeds apace. Last month, Gallup found just 27 percent of respondents admitting that they are Democrats and only 26 percent admitting that they are Republicans. Each of those numbers is at or near historic lows.

Who can blame us, really? Especially when there is a legitimate alternative to reducing your entire existence to political grudge matches between repellent teams who explicitly tell you to check your brain at the door? "The Libertarian Moment" didn't materialize when Matt Welch and I first coined the phrase in 2008, nor did it materialize when it was being talked about in the pages of The New York Times Magazine, that's for sure. But the idea of living in a world beyond politics, where we can agree to disagree about how to live most of our lives, is looking better and better all the time.

NEXT: Congressman Asked Bureau of Prisons Three Times About Nonviolent Offender Who Later Died in Maximum Security Lockup

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

  1. So, now Fonzie is worried about living "inside Trump's mind".

    What a snowfalke. IDGAf about his private inner thought processes, I care about the policies his administration pursues.

    So, no Both Sides! here to be had. Trump can stay in his mind, I'll stay out of it, and I want The Squad (America-haters, to be sure) and their ilk nowhere near the levers of power

    1. You are going to hate the next half-century of American progress as much as you have hated the most recent half-century of American progress.

      I celebrate your discontent.

      1. True, Oberlin College getting hammered for millions does constitute progress. Thanks for confirming that, you slack-jawed hicklib.

        1. ^THIS^

        2. LOL!!!!! +1,000,000 !!!!

      2. Define "progress".

        1. Increasing individual freedom.

          1. Hahahahahaha

        2. Art and I agree on most issues, so I'll try answering that. The progressive / libertarian alliance will accomplish the following things in the coming years or decades:

          Implement the Koch / Reason open borders agenda
          Pay tens of trillions of dollars in reparations for slavery
          Bring back busing for public school racial integration
          Ensure professional men's and women's athletes receive equal pay
          Establish professional athletic leagues for non-binary players (and give them equal pay)

          1. Ha! your agenda is woefully un-Green. You may want to Green it up by including Medicare for All, free tuition (to Art approved state run schools) and an $18 Minimum Wage

          2. Great agenda, but, "tens of trillions for slavery" is way too little, no?

            Also, the WNBA is soooo exciting, that I think they should be paid MORE than LeBron & Co.!!!

            1. Umm, no, I think spectators should be paid to watch WNBA games. Just call it a government 'investment in the future' and folks will approve.

          3. You forgot have minorities self segregate willingly, achieving the ultimate goal of the DNC.

      3. You do mean South American progress, que?

        1. Ai ai ai ai ai
          Have you ever danced?
          In the tropics?
          With that hazy lazy
          Like, kind of crazy
          Like South American Way

      4. ^^ Big fan of The Squad

      5. You are going to hate the next half-century of American progress as much as you have hated the most recent half-century of American progress.

        Over the past 50 years, the US middle class has stagnated and blue collar workers are becoming opiate dependent and committing suicide as progressive policies are failing, but the progressive elite certainly has seen to it that my investment portfolio keeps growing and that faggot intellectual foreigners like myself are treated as demi-gods. So, while I think the past 50 years weren't good for Americans as a whole, personally, I didn't hate them.

        Unfortunately, it looks like the next 50 years might see a changeover from the corrupt crony capitalist progressives of yore to actual socialists. If that happens, trust me, we all lose, even if a hicklib like you is too ignorant to understand.

        1. What has happened to African Americans over the last 50 years, culturally?

          1. What has happened to African Americans over the last 50 years, culturally?

            Lots of things, but the most significant are probably the staggeringly high rates of single motherhood, crime, and welfare dependency. Progressives have managed to turn nearly half of the African American community into slaves again.

            1. It's drug prohibition.

              1. I don't think so; drug addiction is widespread across all races, and drug dealing is a consequence of the inability to hold legal jobs, not the cause. If drugs were made legal, the same people would move to some other profitable black market activity.

                (Mind you, I think drugs should be legalized, but that won't fix these problems.)

                1. Legalizing drugs, while a worthy goal, isn't going to magically increase the proportion of 2 parent households

                  1. As I was saying: "I think drugs should be legalized, but that won’t fix these problems."

    2. Although I don’t agree with Trump’s style and rhetoric, he did not say “if you don’t like ‘everything’ about America, leave.” And he did not personally attack them. They are anti Semitic, pro socialism, promoted by Justice Democrats and they openly hate this country. For those reasons, I personally wish they would leave. They are ruining it for the DNC candidates who are trying to run and helping the DNC implode. This is a lose:lose situation.

    3. One Senator who is an I and 3-4 congresswomen. who knew our entire civilization could hinge on 4 , maybe 5 souls?

  2. There's no point in "both sides" talk when one side (Drumpf and his regime) is running literal concentration camps, and the other side (AOC and the democratic socialists) wants to abolish them.


    1. There is no point whatever in "both sides" talk when a damn fool thinks those are literal concentration camps on the border. No point whatever when a damn fool cannot distinguish between immigration and invasion. No point when a damn fool thinks "open borders" won't destroy this country.

      1. I agree Jim.

        Gillespie writes "The unwillingness of Ocasio-Cortez to acknowledge good-faith disagreements even with her political allies ... is a tactic used by Trump and his supporters." Yes, AOC and OpenBordersLiberal-tarian both refuse to even acknowledge the truth here, much less accept disagreements with good faith.

        I noticed Gillespie was unable to provide an example of how Trump is unwilling to acknowledge good faith disagreements with Democrats. I can't think of one myself, and who's lacking in "good faith" here? Clearly those who claim Trump is running concentration camps are lacking in good faith, because not one of them accused Obama of the same thing even though he did the same thing. Further, they refuse to work with Trump to address the conditions.

        Further Gillespie writes "Trumpian conservatism, which demands complete reverence for the Donald and includes bolder and bolder threats to stifle free speech along with free trade". Trump has done nothing to stifle free speech, and has said several times, he'd agree to eliminate all tariffs. Gillespie should explain how Trump "demands complete reverence" for the president unlike any past president. Half of Trump's hires seem to disagree with him.

        I see Trump working for the average Joe, and the Democrats and RINOs working for the political class. Trump can't do much without Congress.

        1. And does Gillespie truly believe we need "some government education"? If so, he's not much of a Libertarian.

    2. Seriously? I suppose you believe the “the Border Patrol is forcing them to drink out of toilets” line too. And I can safely assume you won’t believe Obama did it to. Obama deported several million illegals (YES, illegals), Trump: several hundred thousand. The conditions are deplorable for the illegal immigrants running across the border, but Congress was asked months ago for money and replied: “manufactured crisis”. This has been going on for decades while Congress kicks the can down the road. So before you post, look up some history on the topic and get the facts.

  3. This is politics at its absolute worst.

    A few years ago some magazine put together a charming viral video that underscored that this kind of thing is not at all politics at its worst. Not as far as the United States of America is concerned.

    1. I have found it all rather entertaining.

      1. Reading about George Washington and yellow journalism, Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus... I think what we have is bad, but still part for the course.

        1. "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it."

    2. "This is politics at its absolute worst."

      What apparently is not (according to Gillespie) the worst of politics:
      - antifa terrorism
      - tech oligarchs colluding to censor and destroy wrongthinkers
      - attempted coups by the Police State
      - people being beaten and persecuted for wearing hats
      - the steady March toward global socialism

      1. You left out the persecution of Conservative Christians by the LGBT Agenda, which is aiming to CRUSH & CRIMINALIZE their Natural & Constitutional Rights of Freedom of Religion, Speech, Conscience & Association!

        If the Equality Act passes & sexual orientation & gender identity are codified as Federal Civil Rights, Christianity will be dead in this nation, just like it is in Canada right now!

        1. "Persecution". LOL.

          1. Yes, persecution. You somehow find that amusing?

        2. If your religion can only survive by discriminating against gays and lesbians, you got problems, son.

          1. Gays and lesbians are defined by their discriminating affinities

          2. Let us rephrase your statement in a way that more clearly expresses what has to be true underlying principles in order for your statement to be what you think:

            If your religion can only survive by having to maintain it's own dogmas, beliefs, and moral codes, you got problems son... but I will certainly keep mine, expect you to honor and adhere to mine, and I hold no possibility for people to have acceptable variations from my moral code, even if they practice them passively.

            Damn... why do you hang out at a libertarian(ish) website?

          3. If your religion can only survive by discriminating against gays and lesbians, you got problems, son.

            But those problems are of no concern to you. In a free society, people should be able to discriminate against each other for any reason or no reason at all.

          4. Chipper, I have to wonder if you're ignorant or aware if the rampant global anti Christian attacks, especially in muslim countries.

            1. You mean anti Easter worshippers

          5. Chipper, spoken like a true bitter atheist.

        3. You left out the persecution of Conservative Christians by the LGBT Agenda

          That's not the "LGBT Agenda", it's just the socialist agenda. L, G, B, T are pawns and pretext, just like blacks, Latinos, "the poor", and anybody else.

          You might want to consider, however, whether you don't want to adopt a consistent position on anti-discrimination laws. Right now, "conservative Christians" claim protection under anti-discrimination laws, while refusing the same to homosexuals. Do you think that's wise? Do you really want to force faggots like me to serve you dinner instead of simply letting me say "I'm sorry, I don't approve of your so-called 'conservative Christian' lifestyle"?

          1. Homos like you already do that and get away with it. It’s only an issue if you're discriminating against Muslims.

            But gays are a protected darling class. Where you are free to force yourself down Christian’s throats, and make them swallow your gay agenda.

            Before you try and denigrate me as a Christian fundamentalist, you should understand that I am an agnostic. I just don’t like slavers.

            1. Before you try and denigrate me as a Christian fundamentalist

              I wouldn't do that. I know plenty of Christian fundamentalists, and none of them are jerks like you.

              you should understand that I am an agnostic. I just don’t like slavers.

              Yet you defend "protected darling class" status for certain groups, you just think it's OK because it's rarely enforced these days.

      2. To be sure

        @Nardz, don't forget Communism, which in no way the same as Stalinism, which was just "improper implementation"

        1. Globalists of the world, unite!

      3. I keep saying this, we cannot let progressives remain in the US and expect to keep our country,

        They have to go. There is no version of this where they remain here, outside of occupying landfills face down, where America survives.

        1. Remember when you lied and said you weren't in favor of mass murder to further your political agenda?

          1. You progtard traitors are completely welcome to exit this country peacefully, and without incident. However, don’t expect for your shit to be continually tolerated here. We absolutely have a right to self defense from your Marxism. So if you choose to choke our rivers with your dead, that’s on you.

            1. Eewwww don't put them in the drinking water

            2. I'm neither a progressive nor a Marxist. And you could've just said "yes, I am a fascist" instead of being an embarrassing keyboard warrior.

              1. No, you’re the fascist. I believe in my freedoms. I’m also very militant about it. Unlike some others here, I hit back against slavers like you. Very, very hard.

                Infringe on my freedoms at your peril.

                1. Yes! Your constant, asinine, knee jerk, reactionary replies show that you're one tough hombre!

                  haha - Keyboard warrior FOR SURE!

                  Keep living the fantasy Shitlord...

          2. bignose
            July.16.2019 at 11:46 pm

            "Remember when you lied and said you weren’t in favor of mass murder to further your political agenda?"

            Remember when you knew the difference between murder and self defense? Didn't think so.

            1. To him, murder is when I do anything other than meekly march into the cattle car to be transported to a progressive run concentration camp.

        2. Sure we can let progressives stay in the country. Let's just end federal government welfare and redistribution (as before Roosevelt), and limit government to protecting us from others who'd harm us (and that includes progressives who want to take our money for others).

          Progressives can then stay, if they're willing to accept the freedom and responsibility for taking care of themselves. Or we can turn our country into a socialist s***hole that socialist countries always become. We can also tell socialists, since they like socialism so much, they should move to a socialist country of like minded people to reap their socialist rewards rather than suffer the indignities of the free market.

    3. Thanks Fist


    4. You are correct. For the USA, this is politics, pretty much, as usual. And, as much as we might hate it, it is, in the long run, healthy. It's when one does NOT hear weird, unsettling, and often downright stupid things from across the political spectrum, that one should be concerned.

  4. The problem is that the worse things look, the more people say that "somebody should do something". Libertarianism looks worse to most people, even if it's the only political philosophy that could calm things down.

    I will now quote the great libertarian thinker, Donovan:

    When I was a young man I was led to believe there were organizations to kill my snakes for me
    i.e., the church
    i.e., the government
    i.e., the school
    But when I got a little older I learned I had to kill them myself

    1. Libertarians are quite rightly mellow yellow?

      1. Superman or Green Lantern ain't got nothing on me.

        1. wish i could fly like Superman.

          1. Kryptonite.

            If I go crazy, then will you still call me Superman?
            If I'm alive and well, will you be there and holding my hand?
            I'll keep you by my side with my superhuman might

            3 doors down

            Just a song.

      2. Ah, but you may as well try and catch the wind.

    2. Is that before or after he offed Billy Batts in the bar? Well, later in the trunk

    3. "I will now quote the great libertarian thinker, Donovan:

      When I was a young man I was led to believe there were organizations to kill my snakes for me
      i.e., the church
      i.e., the government
      i.e., the school
      But when I got a little older I learned I had to kill them myself"

      Never a big fan of Donovan, but this is good 🙂

  5. Libertarians are not anarchists but believers in limited government.

    Shame that sort doesn't seem to have a political party.

    1. We do not really need one.

    2. We do need limited - very limited - government. Perhaps, for a start, eliminating all those Federal departments that are not specifically authorized in the Constitution, or in the Bill of Rights? Imagine, for instance, how affordable medical insurance and medical care might be if the vastly bloated Federal government weren't involved? How affordable energy might be if the vastly bloated Federal government weren't involved? How affordable education might be if the vastly bloated Federal government weren't pumping money into that system?

      1. Hmm, how about limiting the number of laws? Want a new one? Take down an old one.

        Or the number of Federal employees? Or (obviously not original) the Federal budget?

        Or just simplifying the tax code to a uniform head tax. THAT will make more people interested in a limited government.

        1. Sure, limit the number of laws. Do that by eliminating entire departments. Get rid of Dept of Education. Get rid of Dept of Energy. Get rid of Dept of Agriculture. Get rid of Homeland Security. Get rid of . . . . . Quit studying red-spotted salamanders. Quit funding Christ knows how many special projects, to the tune of billions of dollars. Get back to what the Federal government is supposed to do: Protect the borders, talk with other governments, just one or two other duties.

          1. You could accomplish everything you listed - and Reason would still call you the devil for protecting borders

          2. I mean, unless you can un-invent nuclear weapons, I think we probably ought to keep the Dept. of Energy around.

            Shrink it, sure, but on the "Urgent-Important" matrix, responsible handling of fissile material is in the upper-left quadrant...

            Agreed on all other points (plus, your likely intent regarding the DoE).

        2. There would be zero tolerance for bloated, wasteful government if we all paid the same amount in taxes to support it. The fact that half the population self righteously screams “they should get even more!” is at least helpful to identify the resentful useful idiots among us.

      2. My Marxist aunt always lectures me as to how popular Medicare is. I always ask her ‘as opposed to what?’. She doesn’t get it.

  6. "Democratic socialist squad?"
    The Nazis had a "democratic socialist squad." It was called the gestapo. It was run by a kind and understanding humanitarian called Himmler.
    Stalin had a "democratic socialist squad." It was called the NKVD. It was run by a pleasant and sympathetic gentlemen called Beria.
    I sleep so much better now that AOC has her "democratic socialist squad" assembled for all us little people.

    1. Himmler? Beria? She has no idea who they are.

      1. Like most of her ilk and generation, history started when they got woke.

        (To be fair, for most humans, history started with what the can remember. So, like last week.)

    2. This one is simpler, it's just panties in a Wad Squad.

  7. Trump is the only electable politician even trying to reduce the size and power of the federal government. Any libertarian who would try to get him impeached, or even run against him, is a short-sighted fool if not actually malicious.

    This is yet another reason that I will no longer register as libertarian. (#1 being that the LP refuses to even try to purge itself of kooks who make all its candidates unelectable.)

    1. Trump is the only electable politician even trying to reduce the size and power of the federal government.

      Trump is trying to reduce the power of the federal government?

      1. Don't worry, Crusty, they are quite close to abandoning any rhetoric of reducing government. Give them another year. It's just twitches of a dropped lizard tail at this point.

        1. Give them another year.

          Tucker Carlson frequently states that the biggest threat to freedom is no longer government, but Big Tech.

          1. The federal government still needs to conduct a trial before they unperson you.

            The thought is not without merit.

      2. The deficit next year is projected to be more that $1T. For a single fiscal year.

        If Trump is trying to reduce the size and power of the federal government, he's as incompetent at that as he is at everything else he does.

        1. God you purists seem to be ignorant as to how our government works. The appropriation under trump has consistently been veto proof. Way to blame him! You're aware of how things work right?

          Trump has cut regulations, an action he can take outside of congress. He has asked his departments to slash 10% of their budget, a judicial issue that he may have to rescind due to the take care clause.

          Trump has done what he actually can to reduce government on his own. He has an adversarial Congress hacking up spending, not him. But you keep being ignorant on how government works.

          Reason is slowly becoming the paper for naive libertarians.

          1. Reason's purpose seems to be to convince libertarians that they should at least side with progressives, if not outright support them.

            See: Gillespie's article about Steve Bannon, in which Gillespie states that open borders should be the first priority of libertarians and they should ally with socialists (globalists of all parties) to accomplish that goal.

          2. Nah some of us been around.

            Naive purists. I laugh at that.

            It is not a problem to leave the liberation camp.

            It is not for everyone.

    2. I don't think that Trump is trying to reduce the size and power of the federal government, and I don't know where you get that idea. Is it just because he's taking the scenic route to even larger government, unlike the Democrats?

      I don't understand why so many Trump supporters insist on identifying as libertarian. I get that there is some overlap, and on that, we should work together. But that doesn't make them libertarians, and it doesn't mean that libertarians should stand down and support someone who otherwise opposes many libertarian policies.

      1. There are (or were) some small initiatives to reduce government, most go unnoticed. But they are offset by increased military spending and wall finding/enforcement.

        1. That is true. They are also offset by a promise, so far apparently kept, to retain the massive entitlements as they are.

        2. Gee, the only 2 things the National Government should be doing...

          1. Don't leave out entitlements, which Trump supports. They are the real budget busters.

            1. He can’t do anything about them, so why expend political capital to try at this juncture? Ryan would have blocked him before even if McConnell didn’t, and now the traitors, I mean democrats, are running the House.

          2. Just because it should be doing them doesn't mean it should be doing what it's doing with them.

            Just because you recognize defense as a proper function of government doesn't mean you have to endorse dropping more bombs on Afghanistan.

            1. Has Trump been dropping More bombs, or Less?

              1. Less, or "fewer" I think. Did I score 100% on the test?

    3. Nothing says we're the party of individualism quite like purging ourselves of kooks.

      1. Well, you need to understand, Gary Johnson wasn't libertarian enough, and he made a mistake on TV once. That's why we have to instead support someone who is a prince of big government and public gaffes.

        1. That's true. You forget that "bake that cake" should be a litmus test for libertarians.

          While federal authority over immigration, protectionism, bump stock bans, increased military spending, continuing foreign wars, supporting domestic spying, and breaking up tech companies are all just the price we have to pay for someone that will lower our taxes that one time.

          1. That’s true. You forget that “bake that cake” should be a litmus test for libertarians.

            I saw what Biden's panel on Title IX and campus sexual assaults did, kooky Gary Johnson made it obvious what the deal was when Bill Weld put himself in charge of a 100-person gun control panel practically on the spot and Gary quietly acquiesced.

            1. As opposed to Trump's love of the welfare state (especially Medicare and SS), protectionism, gun control, easy money, breaking up companies, the list goes on. I understand that you may agree with much of that; I'm just pointing out that none of it is libertarian.

              1. He is the only pres I can think of that has actually to any degree effectively reduced economic regs. That is huge for me. Now, in other ares we got lots of bloat. On balance, he seems to be growing the gov. But the question is WHERE is it growing/shrinking? Given realistic options at the time... hes doing better than anyone I could have come up with (again... realistically). Does that make him a certified positive? No... but it does make defending him (when appropriate) critical because the tentative isn't perfection... its total ruin. I'll take Trump for 4 more if that means 4 more of the best we've had even if it's still a shit sand which. But as soon as a realistic better option shows up... time to change who I would support practically (even if I always support, conversationally and philosophically people who are much better... as in over a beer even if I may not vote for them due to them losing).

                1. And let’s be honest, GayJay wasn’t going to get elected. Trump won, and can win again.

                  The alternative is like letting the Kurgen receive The Prize. With the democrats come a thousand years of darkness.

    4. Trump wants to reduce the power of the federal government by transferring that power to Donald Trump instead.

    5. Trump is reducing the size of government by running up trillion dollar deficits. I'm not sure how that works, but then I'm not a stablegeniusbillionaire.

      1. You're a fucking idiot if you think trump was not handed veto proof appropriation Bills.

        1. +100

        2. Jesse, he’s a fucking idiot.

  8. "Where exactly does he get off telling people that if they don't like everything about the United States, they should leave?"

    He gets off on the exact same spot where anyone that doesn't agree with liberal ideology gets called a racist bigot.. Over and over again.

    Goose meet Gander.. and both birds fucking stink!

  9. Did Pres. Trump genuinely make it through Fordham (or was it Hofstra?) and Penn with no familiarity with standard English, or are his random capitalization and other forms of illiteracy an affectation designed to establish credibility and solidarity with half-educated bigots and superstitious slack-jaws?

    1. The hicklib NPC speaks from experience.

    2. fingers fat from decades of counting money. phone-posting difficult.

    3. Arty, you didn’t even finish high school. You’re lucky to have your minimum wage job working for that wealthy conservative.

    4. It's early stage Alzheimer's.

  10. The "Squad" is not just hating on a few little things about the United States. They deeply dislike its very foundation and openly pine for an authoritarian socialist society to be forcibly put in its place. I don't think it's inappropriate at all to suggest that such people seek somewhere else to live.

    1. Fundamental disagreement with the Bill of Rights. Somehow I don't think they're working to uphold the Constitution.

    2. I agree with you Every Sandwich. However, as usual, even when Trump is right he says it so poorly that his statement gets more attention than his concept. You said it better than he did.

      1. The conscious mind is a realm of idiocy and abstracts.
        The unconscious is genius.

    3. The ‘Squaws’ are why we need to criminalize the practice of Marxism. All of them should be in prison for what they are trying to do.

      1. Ah yes, criminalizing people with different political beliefs, how very libertarian of you.

  11. The political extremism of Donald Trump

    Being basically a 90s Blue-dog, Business Democrat is "extreme"?

    1. Yeah, the historical myopia is startling.

    2. To the Left of Bill Clinton.

  12. Listen Gillespoop, when you and your cocktail-swilling friends get together enough people who can make a difference to join your precious party I will consider joining it, until then I will make a principled stand with winners.

  13. The "Libertarian Moment" is always the next election away.

  14. "Libertarians are not anarchists but believers in limited government."

    The man who founded libertarianism called, he says you're full of shit

    1. The man who founded libertarianism


        1. I laughed.

      1. You're god damn right, yinz Catotarians can't get rid of us that easily

        1. yinz

          Wawa > Sheetz, you camo-wearing jagoff.

          1. Heresy

          2. axiom.

          3. WTF is a Sheetz?

            1. Sheetz is where Hot Pie works in this dimension.

            2. A meth-addled trash heap for simpletons?

            3. You ain’t from around here are you?

    2. John Duns Scotus?

  15. If I wanted to deal with politics all the time, I'd move to a totalitarian country already.

    No you wouldn't. In a totalitarian country, politics is handled for you.

    The squelching of online dissenting voices is the attempt for gatekeepers to do the same.

    1. Nick longs for the peace of a one-party state.

      1. lol. go Reds!

  16. That's a good look for Omar, gives her the excuse that the massive head injury is the reason she says the things she says.

    1. As Nancy Pelosi said, "She has a different experience in the use of words." The short-bus experience.

    2. LOL

  17. The political extremism of Donald Trump

    I’m not sure how “extreme” Donald Trump is. Some of his positions are extreme, but some of them are just counter-cultural– which I suppose might appear extreme. And by counter-cultural, I mean the real definition of counter-cultural, not the nostalgic one. By counter-cultural, his behavior, comments and *some* policies cut against the prevailing cultural norms that are only acceptable in polite society.

  18. don't see "political extremism" ... see more "anti-politician" which is lovely.

    1. >>>Where exactly does he get off telling people that if they don't like everything about the United States, they should leave?

      like this. is playground negotiation. shouldn't freak any *man* out.

  19. The older I get, the truer this is to me

  20. "More importantly, Trump's aggressively banal jingoism stands in direct and obvious contradiction to the origins of the United States, both as colonial havens populated by religious dissenters and people seeking economic opportunity, and later as a breakaway republic from an oppressive government."

    That's what he is doing Nick. He is breaking away from the globalist neoliberalism that says loving your country is racist and you must let anyone walk in and have access to your services. You can't see it because you don't value our sovereignty.

    1. Grow up Peter Pan, there's no perfect global oasis. We live in the closest thing to it. And we don't owe the outsiders a damn thing. Life isn't "fair"

    2. Open-borders types remind me of well-meaning fools from the Cold War who honestly believed that the only thing stopping other countries from disarming was that the US didn't do so.

      1. Those well-meaning fools are still around. They now honestly believe that the only thing stopping other countries from cutting CO2 emissions is that the US didn't do so.

  21. I've become less dogmatic about exactly how little or how much the state should do, preferring instead to talk about libertarian as an adjective or a pre-political sensibility

    Yes, let's dilute the word into something meaningless! That'll help help us promote liberty for sure!

    Is it really so hard to just refer to common culture of libertarians or individualists, as opposed to muddying the waters and laying the ground for people who don't value liberty to co-opt the movement? I think it's time for Nick to re-read Politics and the English Language.

    1. Ooh, and let's called the principled people dogmatic, too. No need to examine the basis of their beliefs, or chain of reasoning behind them - they're just such inflexible dogmatists!

  22. Oh lord, a Gillespie "thought" piece.

  23. I take you more seriously if you didn't cry "raciss" like all the other cluckheads running around. He's a nationalist for sure. Shouldn't that be desirable in the figurehead for a *nation*?
    Is he any more dismissive of Omar or the rest of the squas than Pelosi?

    Being a libertarian also takes being honest about these kinds of things.

    1. Shouldn’t that be desirable in the figurehead for a *nation*?

      It's 2019 so I can't imagine why. Trump is like a blowhard jingoist version of Teddy Roosevelt, who wasn't exactly a boon for freedom.

      1. Yeah, but he's on Mt. Rushmore.

      2. Then who is his George Bird Grinnell?

      3. Whoa, basically when you say that "Trump is like a blowhard jingoist version of Teddy Roosevelt," you're pretty much saying that he's like a blowhard jingoist version of a blowhard jingoist.

      4. “Trump is like a blowhard jingoist version of Teddy Roosevelt”

        What an idiotic observation.

    2. He’s a nationalist for sure.

      This, there's no question about that. Whether he's racist or not is questionable because "racist" has been so watered down that I'm pretty sure I'm in the KKK.

      Shouldn’t that be desirable in the figurehead for a *nation*?

      I would say it's definitely concerning when your leader is filled with guilt and self-hate for his country. As Douglas Murray quipped, "what happens when a masochist meets a real sadist? 'We're worthless, we're useless... WE AGREE!'"

      1. Masochist: "Hurt me baby!"
        Sadist: "No."

      2. If Diamond and Silk say he’s OK, and he’s got Kanye in his corner, and a Lebanese woman is constantly coming to the White House and working with Trump to get black women out of terrible prison sentences, then I’d consider him not to be racist. He’s a New Yorker - he’s got a loud fucking mouth. I was told years ago by another New Yorker not to believe anything a New Yorker says, and to not take any meanness or insults personal because that’s how they communicate.

  24. I’ve read many of the articles here at reasonable, and observed many self proclaimed libertarian members.

    I see nothing cohesive about libertarianism. If anything a powerful libertarian government would increase the divide between the haves and have nots. Individual liberties are great when you have the means to exercise them but they don’t build civilizations.

    A little less of this a little more of that isn’t going to change anything significantly.

    Fixing a completely fucked up society is simply a project, a big one, but one that requires a vision, support for the details, and skill to develop and implement a necessary schedule.

    The vision: a civilization working together on the principles of truth and justice. Where everyone is born with the opportunities for health and success.

    The schedule of details:

    1. Designate the internet a public place with all constitutional rights.
    2. Criminalize all lying for everyone.
    3. Create a separate and secure citizen internet with all constitutional rights.
    4. Give every citizen the right to record everything they witness everywhere they go.
    5. Develop an internet technological democracy, where citizens are expected to vote online daily about all current political decisions.
    6. Government becomes simply the project planners and information/democracy coordinators.
    7. Update the constitution to recognize current technology.

    I didn’t just now think of this. I wrote an original university paper entitled “Technological Democracy” more than 30 years ago.

    1. >>>Criminalize all lying

      so "great idea!" ... do i get prize or jail?

      1. I can't wait til every husband has to plead the 5th several times each day

        "What are you watching on the computer"
        "Where have you been"
        "Do these jeans make me look fat"

        - on the advice of counsel, i must again assert the Constitutional protections afforded me under the 5th Amendment

        1. Rob burned 1 and 5 to the ground.

        2. How long would it take your wife to learn not to ask questions she doesn’t want to hear the answer to?

          1. 25 to life?

    2. Remember everyone, this guy Rob Misek is literally a Holocaust denier. So something as dumb as this comment is still well-above average work for him.

      1. beat me to it

      2. Yes, it would end the bull shit holocaust narrative.

        1. Quick question, how did EVERYBODY, the Jews, the Catholics, the Lutherans, the Atheists, the Communists, the Americans, the Brits, the french, the Russians, and the Germans themselves - how did they all agree to this conspiracy, and how does it benefit them all?

          Who faked the photographs? Who faked the eyewitness accounts? What happened to all the people who disappeared? Did "lice" kill 6 million? If 6 million were killed by lice -How is that any better? Where else have lice killed so many people?

          1. Why did Hitler even mention a 'Final Solution'?
            Why did the Germans take mobile death squads into the Ukraine? I have seen pictures of those, too, and they weren't using lice

          2. The Red Cross visited every camp regularly and kept records of all deaths.

            They recorded a mere 271,000 deaths among all camps for all reasons. That’s not even 5% of 6.000.000.

            Do you believe the Red Cross is that incompetent?

            The ONLY eyewitness accounts are contradictory and supplied by paid witnesses or tortured prisoners.

            There is not one photograph of the impossible gassing mechanism.

            Not one photo or witness statement of a BRIGHT PINK body consistent with cyanide asphyxiation.

            Etc. Etc. Etc.

            1. You think the Red Cross kept records of 'every death', because they were obviously given free reign after their numerous FOIA requests....

            2. "The Red Cross visited every camp regularly and kept records of all deaths."
              This is a non-falsifiable statement. How do we know they kept records of ALL deaths? After all, if the Red Cross didn't record someone's death, they must not have died!

              1. It was their job to record all deaths.

                You believe, as necessary to the bull shit holocaust narrative, that they were so incompetent that they were completely unaware of 95% or 5,729,000 of them.


            3. "The ONLY eyewitness accounts are contradictory and supplied by paid witnesses or tortured prisoners."
              This statement isn't even worth reputing, and the only good thing about it, is that it clearly shows you for the evil POS you are. There are literally THOUSANDS of documented, written accounts of conditions in the camps.
              And what tortured prisoners??

              1. Aushwitz commandant Rudolf Hoss was tortured for days before is confession at Nuremberg that the gas came out of the shower heads.

                A complete impossibility, the mechanism of which was inexplicably never photographed for obvious reasons.

                1. Because there is some technical reason why gas cannot be delivered from a shower head? Fuck, you're dense. It's called a VALVE, Einstein. There are many different kinds....that work many different ways...that all do, more or less, the same fucking thing...control the flow of fluids or gases.

                2. As a chemical engineer, I can testify that shower heads can dispense all fluids, include all liquids, and - wait for it - all gases.

                  Now perhaps you can design more efficient nozzles, but in this particular case, where you wanted the victims to believe they were about to receive a shower, a shower head worked just fine.

            4. "The Red Cross visited every camp regularly and kept records of all deaths."

              Sure. The other 5 million or so who disappeared and were never seen again were abducted by aliens. Most likely Romulans, but nobody can prove it because we're not allowed across the Neutral Zone.

            5. "Not one photo or witness statement of a BRIGHT PINK body consistent with cyanide asphyxiation."

              99% of all camera's in 1945 were black and white, you idiot. Also, pink coloration is a symptom of cyanide poisoning in a LIVING person.

              1. pink colorization is a symptom of Medium-Rare in the dead

              2. Yes and the colour doesn’t vanish immediately upon death.

                So none of the living survivors mentioned to the Red Cross that actually 20 times more people were dying, ever.

                Since the prisoners were working around the clock in shifts at the munitions factories, did the nazis kill the trained workers when they took their showers, in between gassings, or only the new people, in between showers?
                Nobody remembered that eh?

                You think that

                1. Would you believe the only source of the narrative at the time?

                  Head of British Psychological Warfare Executive (Propaganda), Victor Cavendish-Bentick in a handwritten note, wrote on Aug 27th, 1943,

                  “We have had a good run for our money with this gas chamber story we have been putting about, but don’t we run the risk eventually we are going to be found out and when we are found out the collapse of that lie is going to bring the whole of our psychological warfare down with it? So isn’t it rather time now to let it drift off by itself and concentrate on other lines that we are running.”

                  Public Record Office Document F0371/34551 revealed by Stephen Mitford Goodson, ‘Inside the South African Reserve Bank’.


                  1. In 1943, Nazi mass homicides were an unsubstantiated rumor, that were later confirmed. The scale of which wasn't realized until the war was over.

                    1. Well dipshit, zyklon b needed to be heated to be activated. There were no heaters.

                      It would then need to be pressurized to be forced through many feet of separate pipes past valves to shower heads. There were no duplicate pipes or pressurizing systems described or photographed.

                      Then when the people were in the windowed showers the gas would slowly start coming from a few shower heads. There were no air circulation fans photographed in any shower. Unless they were tied to the heads everyone would have crowded for fresh air near cracks or the doors or windows. Death would have taken a long time and been an incomplete chaotic mess. There would have been constant screaming 24/7. There were no paid witness accounts of constant screaming or how those near fresh air would have been later dispatched which would have been a regular occurrence.

                      When they were mostly dead and the doors to the shower were opened, they would have had to wait for the air to clear naturally or those taking out the bodies would also die because no air evacuation system was ever described or photographed.

                      The entire concept is a ridiculous impossibility.

                    2. You sure know how to put the 'ass' in 'assume'

                    3. I’m free to explore all science and logic, reality.

                      You’re a brainwashed slave to a false narrative.

        2. Hey Misek, my great grandfather on my mother’s side was a German Jew. I have a whole branch of my family that literally went up in smoke in the early 40’s.

          So to listen to an anti Semitic piece of shit like you spout bullshit about how it didn’t happen doesn’t fly.

          Seriously, fuck off.

          1. There is no point in arguing with an antisemite Shitlord.

            1. You can’t argue when you have no evidence and can’t refute mine.

    3.! This is from something you alledge to have put real time and thought into? Didn't come up with any significant negative unintended consequences? Really?

      1. It’s a framework that the corrupt will vehemently oppose, because properly implemented it will eliminate both corruption and politics in government.

        I suspect you’re imagining a straw man argument against it based on improper implementation.

        What are you, the libertarian brain trust?

        1. That 'improper implementation' is the real bitch, every time. It's why we really need to give Communism a serious chance

          1. I’ve managed many big project.

            Every one requires clear honest communication and people asking tough questions to be successful.

            That’s only one reason to criminalize lying and record conversations.

            1. ^^ Top People ^^

    4. more than 30 years ago.

      So, prior to 1989...

      "An internet technological democracy" at the speed of 2400 baud? If you want anarchy, just say you want anarchy dude.

      1. You obviously can’t comprehend “vision.”

        1. Not from an anti Semite like you.

      2. Try 56kbits/s There was no "Internet" 30+ years ago, there was ARPANET. You weren't on the internet unless you were in a University lab.

        "Public commercial use of the Internet began in mid-1989 with the connection of MCI Mail and Compuserve's email capabilities to the 500,000 users of the Internet. Just months later on 1 January 1990, PSInet launched an alternate Internet backbone for commercial use; one of the networks that would grow into the commercial Internet we know today. In March 1990, the first high-speed T1 (1.5 Mbit/s) link between the NSFNET and Europe was installed between Cornell University and CERN, allowing much more robust communications than were capable with satellites. Six months later Tim Berners-Lee would begin writing WorldWideWeb, the first web browser after two years of lobbying CERN management. By Christmas 1990, Berners-Lee had built all the tools necessary for a working Web: the HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP) 0.9, the HyperText Markup Language (HTML), the first Web browser (which was also a HTML editor and could access Usenet newsgroups and FTP files), the first HTTP server software (later known as CERN httpd), the first web server, and the first Web pages that described the project itself. In 1991 the Commercial Internet eXchange was founded, allowing PSInet to communicate with the other commercial networks CERFnet and Alternet. Stanford Federal Credit Union was the first financial institution to offer online internet banking services to all of its members in October 1994. In 1996 OP Financial Group, also a cooperative bank, became the second online bank in the world and the first in Europe. By 1995, the Internet was fully commercialized in the U.S. when the NSFNet was decommissioned, removing the last restrictions on use of the Internet to carry commercial traffic.

        1. I think you just proved that in Rob Misek's utopia, he would be the first imprisoned for lying. What a dingus.

          1. Death Penalty offense, but if the Red Cross doesn't document it, it never happened

          2. Misek wants to take down the ZOG machine, Jew, by Jew, by Jew.

            He’s quite the gentleman.

        2. Well dipshit, I never said that I was on the internet.

          I was aware that the technology which enabled computers to network was blossoming.

          You are the liars.

          1. And we’re all Joooooooosssssss!!!!!!

            It’s a big Zionist conspiracy.

        3. Try 56kbits/s

          Nope, 56k didn't come along until about 1996 and was the limit for copper wire at the time. I had a screaming fast 2400 baud (bits/s) modem in 1989 which I used to connect to my friends BBS at VA Tech.

          "There were apparently some early modems used by the US Air Force in the 1950's, but the first commercial ones were made a decade later. The earliest modems were 75 bps (or bits per second). That's about 1/750th of the speed of current modems, so they were pretty slow! But to early networking enthusiasts, modems were 300 bps. Then came 1200, and by 1989 2400 bps modems."

          1. At the time it was pretty fast.

            1. It really wasn’t.

              So are you going to start babbling about how 5G is an Israeli conspiracy to boil our brains inside our skulls now?

    5. Liar! Off to the Gulags, the trains go one way.

      1. Many including I welcome giving you the opportunity to prove that claim because it would expose the mountains of refuting evidence to the light of day for everyone to see.

        It is a crime in 16 European countries to share evidence that refutes the holocaust narrative. Hundreds have been imprisoned for sharing the truth.

        Look at the brainwashed unthinking vitriol you demonstrate when you encounter someone simply discussing the actual science and facts, that call your cherished narrative into question.

    6. You know what is the funniest part of this? It is that you actually think you have any original thoughts.
      This is nothing more than "the fatal conceit" as applied to the internet. The right "Top Men" will be able to "run" the internet for us.

      Oh and don't think we missed the "citizens are expected to vote online daily". Or what? Jail? Fines? Suspend our internet access? So much for constitutional rights on the internet.

      1. Your straw man argument demonstrates that you are incapable of comprehending “vision”.

        1. Your "vision" demonstrates that you are incapable of comprehending "reality".

          1. I welcome the evidence of logic and science.

            You deny it and are afraid to even read about it.

            1. Logic says that a society that requires every free man to be tethered to their wi-fi connection isn't free.

              1. Look around you.

                I want to be protected from your coercive lies.

                Criminalize lying.
                Have the right to record whatever I observe.

                Then fuck you lisr.

                1. Criminalize lying

                  You'd end up receiving ten life sentences, you silly bitch.

                  1. It reminds me of Monty Python's Search for the Holy Grail...
                    "How fast can an unladen swallow circumnavigate the globe?"
                    "European or African swallow?"
                    "Huh? I don't know - ahhhhhh!"

                2. Then fuck you lisr.

                  I have a husband for that, thank you very much.

                  And you didn't address my point. If I can't go off on a hiking trip for a week without becoming a criminal, I'm not free.

                  1. Having the right to do something is not the same as being required to do it.

                    Once lying is criminalized and everyone has the right to record everything they observe, we will have the ability to protect ourselves from the coercion of lying.

                    You can leave yourself vulnerable as you are now, fill your boots.

                    1. Develop an internet technological democracy, where citizens are expected to vote online daily about all current political decisions.

                      So you didn't actually mean this bit then?

                      I do believe that, under your preferred system, you'd be a criminal.

                    2. “Expected” isn’t the same as “required” dipshit.

                      Issues to vote on would come daily.

                      Citizens are currently expected to vote during elections.

    7. "Criminalize all lying for everyone."

      Fuck off, slaver.

      1. I’m free to explore all science and logic, reality.

        You’re a brainwashed slave to a false narrative.

        You’re your own slaver, fuck yourself.

  25. "Where exactly does he get off telling people that if they don't like everything about the United States, they should leave?"

    Nick G, that ISN'T what he wrote. He also didn't say they should leave and not come back... it was an invitation to an all expenses paid visit to elsewhere to fix the problems there, and then come back.
    In essence, it was a try socialism in Somalia, Palestine (the home of one of the squad's parents) and maybe even Detroit or Chicago before steering the entire USA to being the next Venezuela.

    Did Trump understand the Squad were all USA born? I suspect he did, but wanted to drive the Gang of Four back into mainstream Democrats before they had a chance to be seen as independent of Speaker Pelosi. Mission accomplished.

    1. This guy gets it

    2. Wait, are you saying that The Jacket was less than honest in his presentation?

      Or does Nick simply not recognize that one can argue that a question was rhetorical, and that that rhetorical question was actually an implied statement?

      Either way, to state the implicit claim as explicit fact, without making any argument is wrong.

      That he wrapped it up in the hyperbolic strawman of "...don't like everything..." Is just shit frosting on the shit cake. They sure seem to like the perks of power and the fawning atttention from their media allies.

      cough, cough...

  26. Are libertarians really the only people who can ignore twitter?

    1. It seems like it :/

      1. Only Twits and Twats pay attention to Twitter. Still that is a lot of people.

  27. Has anyone else read about the kind of shit that people overheard Truman say? Has anyone else listened to the tapes of the things LBJ actually said? Those guys were nakedly racist and misogynist and didn't give a fuck who knew. Of course, they could also keep their mouths shut when needed, but Trump doesn't hold a candle to real power Democrats when it comes to despising the constituency.

    And I would bet Pelosi is toting a bigger sack than either of those stalwarts of American politics.

    1. LBJ may have ordered as many as six murders, and kept mistresses in multiple cities. And may have been a part of a coup d’etat in 1963.

    2. Its easy to uncover the anti-trump media marching orders. (It starts with VOX and spreads through Bloomberg, NYT, WaPo, the Atlantic and finally, Reason. Islamophobia is out, racist and white supremacist is definitely in. If you're not a pro globalism land reform and re-distribution communist, you're a Racist.

  28. I always wonder, if a real NAZI party calls themselves the Democratic Nazi's joined the Republican Party, if this would be Okay. After all, NAZIs brutalized and killed millions of people. So now we have a major political party, the Democrats (I was one of them), that allows people that call themselves Socialists (who have killed and starved upwards of hundreds of millions) to join the party. My only conclusion is that Democrats are all Socialists. Socialists are all murderers-always.

    1. Nah, they just call themselves socialists because it gives them "outsider" cred.

  29. Twitter trolling, so what. Sorry free speech hurts your feelz.

  30. Good article, Nick.
    The past several days have definitely demonstrated how both Team Red and Team Blue have devolved into packs of shit-throwing baboons.

    We may actually be on the path to Idiocracy in real time.

    1. Team Red and Team Blue have devolved into packs of shit-throwing baboons.

      And here is Jeffy, having gotten his own shit nowhere but all over himself, furiously masturbating for Team Purple.

      1. You mean Team Pedo. And he’s actually masturbating to child rape videos, or the Disney channel.

  31. Nick,

    Whether we libertarians like it or not, we are in a war, not a debate. We can't completely ignore the rhetoric that attaches to street war news that directly affects our liberty. We are in a domestic guerrilla war because radical left wing tyrants in and out of govt have decided to break the law to force a martial response by either govt or vigilantes. Moderate leftists and conservatives dutifully let the terrorists lead this revolution out of fear of their wrath, much like moderate muslims appease violent jihadists. In the desired martial law regime, they [Antifa-types, communists, socialists, etc] believe that transitional central tyranny their best bet to impose either benevolent central communism, tribal anarcho-communism, or something in between.

    Why did the the hard left decide to become lawless, and use Deep State agents, corrupt DA's, and rogue mayors and judges to enable leftist corporations, schools, anonymous stalking activists, and street thugs to intimidate defenders of liberty, and to stifle liberty, especially speech? Because many obstacles, including 3-branch govt, the electoral college, a persistent liberty-loving populist resistance have made it clear that they can't get to their communist regime by constitutional republican democracy.

    So please see this mudslinging not as personal celebrity narcissism, but as a symptom of a much larger disease which is deadly to not just liberty but civilization itself: the disease is actually an economic inevitability...the classic free-rider problem is devolving the prosperous free world into parasitism as predicted...prosperity breeds free-riders until they outnumber workers...a breaking of the social contract of self-reliance and voluntary cooperation is INEVITABLE when a species finds an abundant collectively votes itself the wealth of the producers, it overgrazes the habitat, it loses it's hunting skills, it loses its merit criteria for mating, it loses its ethic of survival by cooperation, its behavior sinks like the rats in Calhoun's Rat Utopia experiments where welfare for all leads unavoidably to destruction of the need to work for food leads to pure vice, pure selfishness, pure predation or nihilism... and the species dies out by their own vices.

    We are watching that free rider devolution accelerate. The internet enables that acceleration, by financial schemes that are undetected until too late, by radicalization of cultish enclaves of parasites who convince themselves that violence to take what they deserve is justified. Doom and gloom, sure, but you can't deny it is happening. Academic libertarianism isn't' enough. Living your own life as a libertarian isn't enough. Sooner or later all of us will be forced into the fight.

    We libertarians all try and live by the non-aggression principle, but as we all know, war can easily muddle who aggressed "first"...that history quickly becomes untraceable in a's too overconnected to isolate cause-effect, just like our overconnected financial system...and just as financial collapse of the myriad asset bubbles is unavoidable, so is escalation of the war between Tyranny and Liberty. We know what side we are on. We know it's inevitable. So prepare. I'm sorry we have to do it, but we have to make brutal choices a do brutal things that libertarians prefer not to. But we owe our families an effort to defend liberty.

    So prepare, and if we're lucky, we'll survive and defeat tyranny again, at least locally, and build an enclaves of liberty. This time it's going to be a guerrilla war on a worldwide scale...a bitter series of wars that will last generations, if not centuries, not unlike the middle east religious wars...and in fact our war will more deeply join that war. Muslim and Asian collectivism and Judeo-christian individualism have been at war for 3,000 years and counting. Secular Collectivism [Russia/China/3rd Reich] IS a religion, as is Secular Individual Libertarianism. The West's war is doctrinally secular, the Middle East's is doctrinally religious, but in effect it's the same war. And we are in it. Prepare. Defend. And hopefully we will honorably recover Liberty as we knew it.

    1. yeah, that

    2. Fight your own damn war.

  32. I'm a libertarian. I was a Libertarian, but found the party worthless.

  33. The political extremism of Donald Trump, Democratic Socialists, and others is a great argument for reducing the size and scope of politics in everyday life.

    Which has nothing to do with being a libertarian or a Libertarian, as that ideology and political group have shown they are entirely incapable of doing that.

    1. Someone sounds cranky!

    2. great argument for reducing the size and scope of politics in everyday life.

      Reducing the size and scope of politics in everyday life is personal choice, and posting on Reason won't help you achieve that.

  34. The political extremism of Donald Trump, Democratic Socialists, and others is a great argument for reducing the size and scope of politics in everyday life.

    Calling out a bunch of incompetent socialist assholes on Twitter now amounts to "political extremism"? Give me a break. Trump is certainly no libertarian, and he is uncouth and unlikable. But politically, Trump is a centrist, both in the policies he espouses and the policies he implements. I challenge you to find a single policy Trump has actually adopted that meets the definition of "extremism".

    Who can blame us, really?

    Gillespie, many people would dearly love to "reduce the size and scope of politics in everyday life", but progressives won't let us. They subject us to a constant barrage of progressive messages, accusations, and demands. If you work for any major corporation these days, you have to sit through "diversity seminars" where highly paid diversity consultants tell you what you have to think about women, immigration, homosexuality and transgenderism, and if you voice any disagreement, you get fired.

    And your response to all this is to parrot false accusations of racism and ratchet up your endorsement of open borders. There is no "us", Gillespie. You are not a libertarian anymore, you have turned into an empty suit and blowhard.

    1. Yeah, THIS

  35. "We don't need any more brown faces that don't want to be a brown voice. We don't need black faces that don't want to be a black voice. We don't need Muslims that don't want to be a Muslim voice. We don't need queers that don't want to be a queer voice."

    Oh, FFS! "We don't need congresscreatures that don't want to be an intelligent voice."

  36. Restate this please.

    “I challenge you to find a single policy Trump has actually adopted that meets the definition of “extremism”.

    Define extremism. Then ask the challenge.

    1. Directed at JW post

    2. Define extremism. Then ask the challenge.

      In common usage, political extremism either refers to authoritarian or anarchical ideologies (socialism, communism, fascism, anarchism), or to political ideologies that are held only by a small percentage of the population. I don't see how Trump meets either of these definitions.

      So, either Gillespie has his own definition of "political extremism" that Trump happens to fall under, or there are policies Trump embraces that I'm not aware of. Either way, if Gillespie doesn't want to come across as unhinged, he needs to explain what he means when he accuses Trump of being an "extremist".

      1. Well put libertarian in that list and I am an extremist.

        So authoritarian or anarchy are reduced to a constant now? They are on opposite ends of a y axis.

        Trump or Gillespie mean nothing to me. I could care less.

        1. Well put libertarian in that list and I am an extremist.

          So? I'm not using it as an epithet. I'm simply saying, I don't see any dimension on which Trump can be called an "extremist". He isn't even an extremist libertarian.

          So authoritarian or anarchy are reduced to a constant now? They are on opposite ends of a y axis.

          Yes, the same way that "extreme temperature" can refer to 110F and -30F. Reducing both tails of a distribution to a single term is the purpose of the word "extreme".

          Trump or Gillespie mean nothing to me. I could care less.

          Well, how nice! But you will care if some extremists actually gets elected, orders you around at gunpoint, and destroys the country. That's why one should take care when using the term "extremist".

  37. Trump isn't an extremist. Point to the policy. First Steps? That he wants to plug the illegal immigration flow?

    And before you open borders supporters get all huffy here's how Canada views illegal immigration. Why it's enough to have this guy's mic cut off on CNN!

    He's right. He's so right, it baffles the mind how we've come to a point this has to be explained. Shorter him: Protect your borders you idiots.

    What policy has he enacted that justifies the utter retarded hysteria around him? Is this reason at work?

    FFS, we live in a time where essentially we're all racists.

    And to be perfectly frank. Fuck those four illiberal buffoons.

    They deserve every shred of scorn sent their way.

    1. Sends out scorn in shreds.

    2. FFS, we live in a time where essentially we’re all racists.

      And libertarians shouldn't concern themselves with the question of whether other people may be racists anyway. In a free society, people are under no obligation to justify to anyone why they choose not to associate with others.

      1. Exactly. It's all thought control at that point.

        So I couldn't care less what's in a politician's heart. I can but judge on the POLICY.

        Everyone is riling themselves up trying to guess what Trump is 'thinking'. Forget that. It'll drive you nuts. Just follow the ACTION.

        The policy is the message.

  38. Libertarians are absolutely anarchists. Anarchy means "without rulers". Government restrained by the NAP could not rule but only defend liberty.

  39. While he's a doofus, Trump has basically governed as a centrist Republican. He's probably to the left of Bill Clinton.

    That he's considered an "extremist", on par with literal communists is pretty telling. Basically that the norm is now socialists like Sanders/Warren?

  40. The increase in political activity is the inescapable consequences of the decrease in religious activity and the passage of the Hart-Celler Act of 1965.

    Excerpt from Retribution Fever:
    The Hart-Celler Act of 1965 proved to be one of the most important pieces of legislation of the 20th-century, directly leading to the “multi-culturalism” of the early 21st. The original legislation sponsored by two Democrats called for admission based upon skills. It fell victim to Rep. Michael Feighan (D-OH; 1905-1992), who called for admission based upon “family reünification”. Ironically, anti-immigrant Feighan wrongly believed that the consequence of the change would be to admit fewer immigrants who were not Euro-Caucasians. Instead, the consequence was admission of more — many more, neither Euro-Caucasoid nor skilled.
    Both LBJ and Senator Edward “Teddy” Kennedy (1932-2009), the philandering, alcoholic younger brother of the late President, supported the change. Kennedy promised that the legislation would not change the complexion of the country. He lied.
    “Our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually,” he promised.
    Prior to 1965, the average number of legal immigrants annually was approximately 300,000. Thirty years later, it was more than 1,000,000. He also claimed wrongly that few would be from Asia.

  41. "essential services such as basic infrastructure, law enforcement, safety standards, welfare for the indigent, and some education."

    Except for law enforcement - WHAT? A libertarian leader wants to seize my money for safety standards and redistributing it to the indigent? That's not collectivism how?

    1. yeah, all of these can be better provided by private companies or charities. usually minarchists just want the government to run the courts, police and national defense. But there's no reason courts can't be private, and private police forces who would be liable for their missteps would be a big improvement over what we have now.

  42. But you're not really a libertarian mister Goth Fonzie, you just play one on TV.

    You're a Clinton/Obama/Soros liberal who wants to "fundamentally transform" America into a western European style social democratic state, with all the massive expansions of welfare and taxation that entails.

  43. The increase in political activity is the inescapable consequences of the decrease in religious activity and the passage of the Hart-Celler Act of 1965. تحميل العاب كمبيوتر

  44. […] was recently reminded (as if I needed any reminding) that libertarians are — and are likely to remain […]

  45. >loving your country is rayciss and extreme
    Oh fuck off.

  46. Plenty of libertarians are anarchists. Just because it's the government doing the stealing doesn't mean it's not stealing.

  47. I don't know if this current repulsive circus is enough to make you rush to become a libertarian, but it's enough to make you move away from being a democrat or a republican.

  48. Obviously Trump is a bumbling and racist lunatic. I'm not sure there is reasonable argument otherwise. Anybody still defending his character as a person should be asking themselves whether their grandchildren will be ashamed of them. I also sympathize with claims that the left has a bad habit of favoring emotional reasoning over rational reasoning. But, I would say Obama was notably not one of the people engaging in that.

    I think the most interesting claim in this article is that the prominence of politics in our culture and our lives is directly correlated to the size of the government. I had never thought about that before, but my initial reaction is to disagree. Even if Justin Amash wins the presidency and all libertarian dreams come true, people will still be watching talking heads analyze the latest tweets, and arguing on Facebook about it. Our obsession with politics is more a product of, for example, the emergence of 24-hour cable news networks who have a vested interest in their audience being preoccupied with politics. Or maybe the siloing of political opinion that has been an unfortunate consequence of the Internet.

  49. Nothing defines totalitarian like state or federal government that ends free speech and medical advice of obstetricians, gynecologists, internists, and nurse practitioners. Man does not live by bread alone. Liberty of women to control the most private place on Earth, the womb, is as important as economic liberty and 2nd amendment rights.

    1. "Man does not live by bread alone?" are you seriously appealing to scripture to defend the killing of the unborn. The reason abortion cannot be treated as a civil liberty is that it involves the life of someone else. Any simple-minded argument that does not directly address when a person becomes a person misses the point of the entire abortion debate.

      1. And anyone who ignores the fact that they support using the federal government's police power to force women to reproduce against their will can go to hell. Immediately.

  50. Democrats kept claiming Donald Trump made fun of a disabled journalist; so why would they be shocked when he makes fun of some disabled Congresswomen?

  51. […] 32:00: Lots of Clown Horn (Link) […]

  52. America WAS better when we didn't have as many people like them. And America WOULD be better again if they fucking left.

    It ain't nice, but it's true.

    Your utopian naivety doesn't change reality. Politics is a team sport. All these anti white, anti capitalist sorts are collectively organizing to destroy everything that made America great. If you weren't such a moronic simpleton you might be able to see the inevitability of this. It happens EVERY time different ethnic groups are in the same political entity.

    Other than mass deportations/emigration, the only way to save America as a free country is to split up the current nation. Deal with it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.