Michael Bloomberg

Bloomberg Is a Statist, Not a Centrist

If the ex-mayor's fondness for relentless government intervention is "moderate," it's no wonder voters are kicking the tires on more "extreme" major-party candidates.


Any day now, Americans could wake up to the prospect of a months-long slog between Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and President Trump. Faced with the dispiriting choice between shouty democratic socialism and barky populist nationalism, voters may find themselves grasping for any lifeline in the vast ocean between the two ideological poles.

One option is the once and maybe future independent, former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg, who has pushed himself into the "centrist" lane in the Democratic primary race, offering himself as an alternative to middle-of-the-roaders Joe Biden, former mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.).

But Bloomberg is no centrist, no matter how much he cultivates the label. His policy positions are not the "moderate," reasonable middle ground between extremes. No, the right word to describe Bloomberg is "statist." He's the leading exemplar, even more than Sanders, of addressing problems "pragmatically" by hitting the big red button labeled "government."

Advocating for federal intervention at the height of the financial crisis in 2008, Bloomberg on "Meet the Press" delivered arguably the single most succinct summation of do-something governance: "Nobody knows exactly what they should do, but anything is better than nothing."

The hastily conceived "anything" in this case included using taxpayer money to cover for the reckless decision-making of the country's wealthiest financial institutions, an outrage so blatant it helped spark not one but two populist backlashes: the Tea Party on the right and Occupy Wall Street on the left.

Such is the track record of panicky government crisis responses, the most notorious of which Bloomberg has dependably backed over the years.

The Iraq War? He still doesn't regret his support, which led to such awkward-for-2020 moments as the then-mayor praising President George W. Bush during the 2004 Republican National Convention for "leading the global war on terrorism."

How about covert, warrantless surveillance of Americans exercising their political and religious rights after 9/11? Check. The drug war? As recently as last January, the onetime pot enthusiast turned overseer of the marijuana arrest capital of the world called legalizing marijuana "perhaps the stupidest thing anybody has ever done." (He only very recently altered his prohibitionism to advocate decriminalizing individual possession "if you have a small amount.")

Back when he was promoting his version of centrism as a trans-partisan independent in 2012, Bloomberg depicted his effort as anti-ideological "problem solving." In reality, the only limits on problem solving — at least until that pesky Constitution is applied — are governmental capacity and politicians' ability to identify problems. And boy, does Bloomberg see the latter everywhere.

People, for example, don't always eat healthfully. So in the name of public health, as mayor he went after, among many other things, food carts, trans fats and salt, lecturing to a United Nations General Assembly meeting that "there are powers only governments can exercise, policies only governments can mandate and enforce, and results only governments can achieve."

When courts blocked Bloomberg's infamous efforts to limit the size of sodas, his response was equally ideological. "We have a responsibility as human beings to do something, to save each other, to save the lives of ourselves, our families, our friends and all of the rest of the people that live on God's planet," he proclaimed. "And so while other people will wring their hands over the problem of sugary drinks, in New York City, we're doing something about it."

If you're detecting a line of governmental paternalism toward citizen-subjects — including but not limited to his post-mayoral leadership role in restricting people's access to guns and electronic cigarettes — Bloomberg will cop right to it. Addressing sin taxes in a 2018 interview, he said: "Some people say, well, taxes are regressive. But in this case, yes they are! That's the good thing about them, because the problem is in people that don't have a lot of money. And so, higher taxes should have a bigger impact on their behavior and how they deal with themselves." He added, "The question is, do you want to pander to those people, or do you want to get them to live longer?"

Thankfully, Bloomberg's brand of statism, unlike that of Sanders, at least recognizes that the government does not have limitless capacity, either in terms of resources or competence. So he'll occasionally veer in policy directions such as expanding school choice and acknowledging that trillion-dollar deficits are a flagrantly irresponsible risk.

But unlike Sanders (or, depending on the day of the week, Trump), Bloomberg does not apply that logic to some life-or-death issues such as foreign policy, surveillance and policing. In a New York Times candidate questionnaire, Bloomberg backed Trump's legally dubious drone killing of Qasem Soleimani, said he would keep troops in Afghanistan at least until the end of his first presidential term, and said he would preserve the option to use military force to protect oil shipments and prevent nuclear tests by Iran and North Korea. After the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, he advised Americans to buck up and get ready for more intrusive levels of surveillance: "Our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution I think have to change."

As for policing, back when he was still defending New York's controversial "stop, question and frisk" policy — that is, until he launched his presidential campaign — Bloomberg justified shaking down innocents, mostly black and Latino, as a way to discourage people from carrying guns. At least one federal judge didn't share his enthusiasm for these wholesale discriminatory, unreasonable searches.

There is nothing inherently centrist about a police state. To the extent that people who imagine themselves to be in the ideological middle support politicians who repeatedly back government prerogative over individual rights, our coming Trump-Sanders moment may provide an opportunity for self-reflection.

Americans don't much like being bossed around. And the serial, unacknowledged failures of the do-something class have made ideological deviants like Trump and Sanders look a lot less scary to a lot of people. Maybe when "centrist" politicians look less statist, more of us politically homeless types will find them more attractive.

"It's the government's job to have good science and to explain to people what science says or how to take care of themselves and extend their lives," Bloomberg posited during Tuesday's debate in South Carolina. "We are a country where there are too many people that are obese. We should do something about that."

Hopefully, he won't get that chance.

A version of this article first ran in the Washington Post.

NEXT: The National Interest, C'est Moi

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. Bloomberg: The man who would be King. At least in his own, tiny, mind.

    1. I re-registered to vote as non-partisan, from Libertarian, so I could cross-over vote in the Democratic primary against Bloomberg. I’m struggling to choose for whom to vote so as to defeat Bloomberg.

      I’m struggling between Bernie and Biden. The Dem Convention voting will come down to a choice between the strongest “radical” – Bernie – vs. the strongest “moderate” – Biden or Bloomberg.

      For Bloomberg to win, he has to emerge as the “moderate” choice and take all the “moderate” delegates, then get enough of them to constitute a majority to defeat the “radical” Bernie.

      So there are two strategies – vote for Biden so as to deny the “moderate” role to Bloomberg, or vote for Bernie so as to give him an eventual majority to defeat Bloomberg if he emerges as the “moderate”
      I am tempted to vote for Biden since he would only need to exceed Bloomberg’s support to displace him as the “moderate” rallying point, rather than need a majority of all delegates, as Bernie would, to beat Bloomberg, if Bloomberg emerged as the “moderate” candidate.

      The question is would Bloomberg bow out or would he be obstinate until Biden is eliminated. If Biden is eliminated, likely, his delegates would go to Bloomberg, meaning one’s support for Biden gets transfered to Bloomberg, not good. Though Biden could get pissed at Bloomberg and throw his support to Bernie.

      According to Dem rules, a candidate needs 15% or better within a jurisdiction to accumulate delegates statewide or by district. Bernie and Biden are over 15% in almost all the state polls. Bloomberg is over 15% in a little more than half.

      1. I’ll re-register to vote Libertarian after the primary.

    2. Thread highlight: Lc gets totally burned by Sarcasmic and can only reply with syntactically poor ad hominems and the kind of grammar mistakes he decries. Good stuff!

  2. Boy. Matt sure got slagged by commenters in the Post.

    1. Welch gets slagged by the remaining commenters here too.

    2. That’s because liberals hate libertarians worse than they hate conservatives. Conservatives usually only dislike rather than hate libertarians. Sometimes I think I should vote Republican as revenge.

    3. Bloomberg is the worst of both worlds. Nanny state interventionism mixed with a dose of plutocratic crony capitalism.

  3. There is nothing inherently centrist about a police state.


    1. A police state (and overall statist government) enjoys bipartisan support these days. That would seem to make it “centrist”.

      “Americans don’t much like being bossed around.” — True, but they sure as hell love using the government to boss other people around. And that’s why the majority of this country will continue to support statism.

      1. This is right on point and we’ll reasoned. I can’t believe it’s an internet comment.

  4. “And so while other people will wring their hands over the problem of sugary drinks, in New York City, we’re doing something about it.”

    “We’re stopping, questioning, and frisking anyone suspected of wringing their hands.”

  5. Well I just heard somebody explaining that the voters are looking for a moderate candidate, someone not as extreme left-wing as Bernie Sanders but not as extreme right-wing as Donald Trump. If Trump is your idea of a right-wing extremist, I suppose Bloomberg can be a centrist. People that swooned and vapored about Trump “normalizing” crudeness with his shockingly impolite attacks on the Left don’t seem to be as concerned about the horrifyingly evil shit Bernie’s normalizing with his attacks on capitalism, democracy, individualism, merit, success and everything good and decent.

    1. I am NOT a fan of Trump. He is uncouth, impolite, downright embarrassing sometimes, and some of his policies seem self-contradictory, or at least inconsistent, but certainly not “far-right.” Overall, looking at his policies, as enacted, though I disagree with him on several important points, his first term has not been anything like the total disaster that some people predicted.

      With that in mind, no matter which of the current dems gets the nod from their party, Trump would, at worst, probably do less harm than any of them.

      1. ^^^This^^^
        Disclaimer: I tend to vote for R’s as the lesser of two evils. However, I couldn’t bring myself to vote for Trump in 2016 and there’s no way I was voting for Clinton. Since Johnson was a remarkably non-libertarian Libertarian, I almost left President empty on my ballot but reluctantly voted L.

        I thought that the D’s might realize what went wrong and come back to the center. Ha!! Trump-Derangement-Syndrome appears to taken over the entire party and they’ve raced to get further left.

        I plan to vote for Trump. I still think he’s often a jerk and I don’t agree with all of his stances, but he’s not been a bad President and the entire field of D’s scare me more.

        1. I will vote for Trump, reluctantly, if the race is close. At least I now live i in a State where my vote might, actually, count for something. I also declined to vote for Pres in the last election.

          1. I will gladly vote for Trump. I gave the LP a vote to get to their ballot access goal nationwide. The LP squandered it.

            At least we know the major problem. The LP is full of LINOs trying to sabotage Libertarianism and they will get the boot in due time. First we have to destroy the Democrat Party as a national political force.

        2. You pretty much described me above.

      2. Trump is an utterly disgusting, loathsome, despicable pig of a human being as far as I’m concerned – but we don’t elect Presidents because they’re nice people. I’d a thousand times sooner invite Bill Clinton to a cookout than Donald Trump because Bill’s a good ole boy you could have a few beers with and he’d tell you some of the funniest, dirtiest stories you’ve ever heard and Trump’s a fat-headed, loud-mouthed teetotaler who would only talk non-stop about himself and how great he is, but I’d never vote for Clinton over Trump.

        1. good summations. Bloomberg terrifies me the least out of the choices on Team D. Biden shows why there should be a maximum age for running for president as well as a minimum.

          1. Bloomberg terrifies me the most – gun-control extremist, authoritarian, crony capitalist, war supporter. I re-registered to vote specifically to vote against him in the Democratic primary. I’m still trying to decide between Bernie or Biden. I’d vote Putin hands down over Bloomberg.

    2. Agreed. Trump is certainly not a right wing extremist. He was a Democrat not that long ago, after all.

      He’s a nationalist and a populist. Through and through. And I agree, while his demeanor is embarrassing at times, his policies (on the whole) are better than any of the Democrat contenders. And certainly better than Bloomberg’s nanny-state style of governance.

      1. Mr. Trump registered for the first time in New York as a Republican in July 1987, only to dump the GOP more than a decade later for the Independence Party in October 1999, according to the New York City Board of Elections.

        In August 2001, the billionaire enrolled as a Democrat. Eight years later, he returned to the Republican Party, The Smoking Gun reported.

        After only two years as a registered Republican, Mr. Trump left the party again, and in December 2011 marked a box that indicated, “I do not wish to enroll in a party.”

        Mr. Trump returned to the GOP in April 2012, The Smoking Gun reported.

        Yeah, he was a Democrat…hahahaha. Anything you need to tell yourself to sleep at night.

        Trump was registered as a Republican 3 times and a Democrat only once. I would bet most Libertarians also have a similar political party registration history.

        1. The point being that it’s hardly the record of a “right wing extremist.”

          His record of political contributions also suggest that his party allegiance has been all over the map.

          1. Well, in 3 years Trump has done more Libertarian-ish things than anyone in the LP has ever done to reign in the behemoth Welfare, Nanny, and Police state that we have.

    3. Of course, much labeling of Trump (and just about every other thing in life) is driven by the bipolar thinking of the average person. If you criticize A then you must be B. Every issue or perspective has only two sides, and thus we must all be for or against.

      (And yes, I know that bipolar can also describe a rapid swing of mental state, but that seems appropriate, too.)

      1. Some might say its more of a spectrum.

  6. “Nobody knows exactly what they should do, but anything is better than nothing.”

    I hear praying works wonders!!

    1. … as long as you include thoughts with your prayers

    2. What ever happened to “First, do no harm”?

      1. That’s doctors, not politicians.

  7. Bloomberg’s plan is to answer every question with “more government”. He thinks that will appeal to both Republicans and Democrats. He might be right.

    1. At least he doesn’t hate capitalism

      1. Unless those particular capitalists are selling large sodas or petroleum – – – – –

        1. Let’s not forget guns.

  8. Pragmatist statists have always held themselves out as centrist moderates, hence Goldwater’s quote on moderation’s virtue depends on context.

  9. On a Left to right Political Spectrum:

    Left-wing (Communism/Socialism/Fascism)…………….Center (Libertarianism)…..Right-wing (Monarchy/Theocracy)

    Bloomberg is no Libertarian, so he is not Centrist.

    1. Calling libertarianism “centrist” really misses the emphasis of personal liberty/responsibility vs state imposed centrism like Bloomberg and his ilk espouse. You should probably look up the work of David Nolan some time.

      1. Centrist is the best. The most Liberty and the smallest state presence. The Center is a spectrum not a single dot, point, or line.

        David Nolan is a goober. Libertarian is NOT the opposite of Authoritarian and there are no such things as “Liberals” anymore. We call them Classic Liberals.

        1. The Center is a spectrum not a single dot, point, or line.
          Which is precisely how the Nolan chart is constructed. Wide in the middle to show the spectrum of the center.

          In reality, political positions are multi-dimensional. We could probably come up with a cube, or some abstract way to represent 4-dimensions on political positions. You can deny Nolan’s concept as being imperfect in this way, but to simplify the myriad of political positions to a mere line is absurd.

          1. The concept of the Nolan chart can work with the changes I mentioned. It still puts Libertarianism in the Center where the worse ideas of Authoritarianism are excluded but still has tiny and limited government under Rule of Law. Combined with maximum liberties under that limited Rule of Law.

            Poof. Very light taxation to fund a tiny and limited government and most responsibility for daily decisions fall to the citizens of that nation. Government being a necessary evil that is tightly limited to control that evil but tiny enough for the common defense.

          2. The Nolan chart has two axes– Left/Right and Authoritarian/Libertarian. One is so vague as to be useless, and the second isn’t actually a dichotomy

            Further, the placement of answers on the chart reflects basic leftist biases–racism is not defined as collectivist at all, environmentalism is always good.

            It is a flawed tool that produces flawed results.

      2. Is it at all libertarian to impose your axis upon him? Anyone who defines central as a positional good is going to place their ideals in the center.

        1. All the Nolan Chart has to have moved is some opposite of Authoritarianism (which is not Libertarianism) and remove “Liberal” because there is no such thing. There is some opposite of Conservative and its probably Progressive.

          Libertarianism is probably in that juicy center since its a mix of tiny and limited government and maximum social freedoms.

          1. lib•er•ta•ri•an lĭb″ər-târ′ē-ən►
            n. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.

            authoritarian ə-thôr″ĭ-târ′ē-ən, ə-thŏr″-, ô-►
            n. One who supports the principle of authority, as opposed to that of individual freedom.

            Those sound like pretty much opposites to me.

            1. Authoritarian is the state in totality.
              favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.

              Libertarianism has a tiny and limited state. Not opposites.
              lib·​er·​tar·​i·​an | \ ˌli-bər-ˈter-ē-ən
              1 : an advocate of the doctrine of free will
              2a : a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action

              Anarchy could be a good opposite. Anti-Authoritarian is another. Democratic could be one.
              b capitalized : a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles

              1. Voluntarist.

                Authoritarians favor strict obedience to authority (Note–‘state’ is not essential here)

                Voluntarists prefer obedience be provisional

                These are opposites.

                Totalitarian/ Anarchism

                Total control–zero ontrol

                These are opposites.

                Collectivist/ Individualist

                These are opposites.

                And there’s your cube.

                1. +100000
                  better. Thanks Azathoth!!

        2. I didn’t “impose” anything, nor do I have the ability to. I’m merely debating the finer points of political theory. The idea of a left-right continuum is, unfortunately, a contributing factor to the idea that 2 parties can fully represent political thought in this country.

          1. In a political spectrum there are literally infinite possibilities of political parties. However, there are only 3 completely different spectrums: Left, Centrist, Right.

            1. That is very one-dimensional of you.

              1. HAHA. Thank you. Things are great when they are not over complicated by people set to destroy those concepts.

                1. Yeah. Two dimensions is overly complicated. Definitely. Anyone who disagrees has bad intentions. Jesus you’re a fucking retard.

                  1. You’re welcome for keeping things so uncomplicated.

                    It will allow you more time to drink and rage over losing custody of your kids.

                    1. I definitely won’t look you up if my kid needs a tutor for basic geometry.

                    2. You don’t have any say over who teaches you kids anyway. Your ex does.

                      Poor unreason.

                    3. I’m flattered by your interest in my personal life. When my child’s preferences are heard she will be back with me. And I still won’t consider you as a geometry tutor. You only see one dimension. The X,Y axis is overly complicated for you. Algebra must be a foreign language to you.

                    4. Now I will admit, being the humble man that I am, that calculus isn’t something I can use. I understand it conceptually, but putting it to practical use just doesn’t click.

                      But basic geometry? Algebra? Dude…

                    5. Look at sarasmic beg for replies.

                      This is what unreason is now.

                      Some real people with some good posts and unreason sock trolls begging for replies.

                    6. Says the guy who has the last word on everything because people get tired of arguing with you.

                    7. Too bad.

      3. Bloomberg is not centrist. He is not libertarian. He isn’t particularly “democrat” or “republican” either. Nor is he “liberal” or “conservative”.

        He is an authoritarian piece of shit who thinks he knows what your life needs better than you do and that you should be grateful to allow him to run your life for you; the elitist pig’s elitist pig.

        First-order human garbage and probably the most frightening person to ever run for president.

    2. Someone’s never heard of the Nolan Chart.

      1. See above. The Nolan chart is ridiculous.

        Libertarianism is NOT the opposite of Authoritarianism and there no “Liberals”.

        1. I’m quite sure that the vast majority of libertarians would disagree. But what do they know? You’re obviously the authority on everything. I mean, you literally worship Trump as a god, so you definitely know more about everything than anyone else.

          1. I know American English is real hard for you. Maybe its the wet brain.

            Libertarianism means something and so does Authoritarianism. They are not opposites. Anarchy could be an opposite of Authoritarianism but not Libertarianism.

            You don’t anything about Libertarianism or what Libertarians think because you dont want to. You want to be unreason’s sock troll and backup the nonsensical anti-Libertarian crap printed here.

            1. Good point. I mean, the fact that I’ve been a libertarian for twenty years, studied the subject, and debated many people about it means absolutely nothing. Obviously you know more than anyone else in the entire world about everything. The fact that you kneel to a picture of Trump every day is irrefutable proof.

              1. HAHAHAHA. I was going to say something here but you’re an admitted Anarchist, so your not a Libertarian.

                If you think they are the same thing, I would just say trump being Libertarian-ish is why you hate him.

                1. Yeah. Keep calling me an anarchist and keep saying I hate Trump. Maybe someone without a brain will believe you, but anyone who reads my actual words knows it isn’t true.

                  1. Who cares what you say.

                    You seemed sad, like unreason ball cleaners do, so I threw you a bone.

                    It’s my good dead for the day.

                    1. “Who cares what you say.”

                      People who like having actual conversations instead of sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling like a child.

                    2. We were never having a conversation. You dont have those.

                      You lower your alcohol cup long enough to post some blathering nonsense and then your wet brain losing your kids rages sets in.

                    3. I’ve noticed that when someone says I’m talking nonsense and then start calling me names, it’s because they lack the intelligence and education to comprehend what I am saying.

                      You are no exception.

                    4. Funny that sarcasmic considers being called the Anarchist that he is a “name”.

                      You know what you wrote and how it’s nonsense. Or maybe you don’t realize it.

                    5. If I started calling you a Democrat I’m sure you’d consider it a “name.”

                    6. What I write is only nonsense you and others with a room-temperature IQ. The engineers and lawyers, as in the majority of the people here, don’t consider it to be nonsense.

                    7. Poor sarcasmic trying so hard to get more web traffic for unreason and any advertiser can see its sock trolls begging for replies.

                      I would never give unreason a cent.

                    8. So that’s your default. When you have no argument the only explanation is that those who are smarter than you must be Reason employees trying to get advertising clicks?

                      Here’s a clue. The smart ones use AdBlock. We don’t even see the advertising.

                    9. I like to click the advertising away, so they know I am not watching it.

                      The metrics reveal the truth. It’s why unreason has stepped up their popup game.

            2. By the way, the fact that you still don’t know the difference between libertarian and Libertarian is one of the many things that makes you look like a complete idiot on this forum.

              The Nolan Chart is actually quite accurate. Or at least much better than a simple line.

              People on the left abhor economic liberty while those on the right celebrate it. People on the right abhor personal liberty while those on the left celebrate it. Authoritarians like Bloomberg support neither, while libertarians support both.

              In practice Republicans give lip service to economic liberty while Democrats openly mock it. At the same time Republicans don’t respect personal liberty while Democrats embrace it.

              Calling me names will not change that.

              1. HAHA. “L” vs “l”. HAHAHA.

                Fucking Anarchists crack me up.

                1. I didn’t expect you to respond to what I actually said. You can’t. You can’t respond because you can’t understand. So you resort to name calling.

                2. Very good sarcasmic “Anarchist” is a name, alright.

                  I dont care what they say about you, that drinking problem and homelessness barely shaved more than a few years off your life.

                  1. Keep it up with the ad hominems while ignoring the content of my post. You only confirm my point.

                  2. Why would I ever want to discuss any topic with YOU sarcasmic youre an unreason ball washer who has nothing interesting to say.

                    Come up with some interesting material and then you might get a reply from me like you want so bad. Otherwise, I will continue to talk over you.

                    1. Another argument against the person. You’re on a roll. Keep it up.

                    2. Poor unreason has to use sarcasmic in this way. Desperation.

              2. This is absolutely and completely wrong–

                People on the left abhor economic liberty while those on the right celebrate it. People on the right abhor personal liberty while those on the left celebrate it.

                People on the left abhor liberty. ALL types of liberty. They prefer an ordered society with collective management of all aspects of life to ensure a greater good. They will work tirelessly towards imposing that greater good on the populace as a whole.

                People on the right celebrate liberty. ALL types of liberty–but they realize that with such liberty comes responsibility–personal responsibility, this tempers the impulse towards libertinism. It is that ‘tempering’ that leftists use to accuse people on the right of oppressive behavior.

                Authoritarians like Bloomberg support neither,

                Authoritarians like Bloomberg are a by-product of societies that flirt with leftist management. They are creatures of the far left, the crony ‘captalists’ the State uses to prey on the people.

                while libertarians support both.

                Do they?

                1. If you do the political spectrum then people on the Right Wing, the Monarchists, hate liberty too. The linear ends of the political spectrum being the least favorable to liberty while the Center is the most favorable.

            3. A night-watchman state is a model of a state that is limited and minimal, whose proponents are called minarchists. The theory is mainly associated with libertarianism in the United States, Objectivist and right-libertarian political philosophy, whose state’s only functions are to act as an enforcer of the non-aggression principle by providing its citizens with the military, the police and courts, thereby protecting them from aggression, theft, breach of contract, fraud and enforcing property laws. 19th-century Britain has been described by historian Charles Townshend as a standard-bearer of this form of government among Western countries.

              A night-watchman state has been advocated and made popular by Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974).


              1. I tried explaining that to lc and he’s been calling me an anarchist ever since.

                Even with sentences like “They argue that anarcho-capitalism is impractical because it is not sufficient to enforce the non-aggression principle because the enforcement of laws under anarchism is open to competition.” or “Some minarchists argue that a state is inevitable, believing anarchy to be futile.”

                He can’t get it. All he can do is call people names like a child.

                1. I am one of the few people around here that would discuss Anarchy with you and I would even give your clan of Anarchists a Bitcoin to get Anarchy-land started. Just let me know where you are moving to and when you are buying some land to break ground.

                  1. You want to discuss anarchy? Cool.

                    Start with explaining the difference between minarchy and anarchy. Or perhaps the origin of the word. As in “an” + “archy” meaning “no” + “ruler”. Or minarchy. As in “minimal” + “ruler.”

                    Can you discuss that like a man? Or will you hurl insults like a child?

                  2. That’s what I thought.

                  3. Or what about the difference between libertarian and Libertarian. Lets discuss that. Can you? Without acting like a schoolyard bully?

                  4. Come on! Discuss! Without sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting names! Do it!

                  5. crickets

                  6. Yup. Looks like a sarcasmic desperate discussion to me.

                    I mean you poor guy. unreason put out some new hack articles. Get that ball washer ready.

                    1. I invited you to have a discussion like a man. Instead you call me names like a child.

                      I hope others are reading this exchange. So they can see lc for what he is.

                    2. HAHA. Poor sarcasmic. He thinks people will respond to his attacks even though he calls them “discussions”.

                      HAHA. unreason is so sad to use this sock troll.

                    3. I’m the one who attacks? Dude….

                    4. Poor sarcasmic.

                      Someone give this drunk a hug.

              2. The Night watchman state is still NOT Libertarianism.

                You can call Anarchy (Minarchism) whatever you like. Nobody is falling for it because that is what Lefties do when people are turned off by the ideology.

                Libertarianism has Rule of Law under a tiny and limited democratic state, where the people rule the government. Early USA is a good example, minus the slavery. It’s why the Founders were Classical Liberals and not Libertarians even though many similar features intersect.

                1. Lefties who want to control everything default to Minarchism? Do you even understand how absurd that is?

                2. Poor sarcasmic wet brain makes it hard to read.

                  1. Poor lc. Lacks the intelligence and education to argue against what someone says. Must make it personal.

                  2. sarcasmic is cute when he reveals his personal life on here like anyone cares and then gets upset when I feel sorry for his wet brain symptoms.

                    1. I’ve actually met people from the forum. Made friends. Gone to rock shows. Shot guns. Made meals. Ate out. Can you say that? No. Why? Well, that’s a question that doesn’t need answering.

                      Which one of us is a loser? The guy with no friends, or the guy who is so damn popular that Tulpa uses his name in his handle?

                    2. How in the fuck would I meet sock trolls?

                      Why would I want to travel to hang out with Anarchists and Lefties that run this rag?

                      I hang with people that I want to hang with and some of them are Libertarians. They also cannot stand unreason.

                      But hey, keep those memories of what unreason used to be alive my pastey friend.

                    3. “How in the fuck would I meet sock trolls?”

                      Oh that’s pretty easy. You see, when principled libertarians (notice the lower case L) disagree with you, it’s not because they’re sock trolls. They are actual people. They aren’t being payed to make comments. They’re just people. And some of them are really cool to hang out with.

                      You dehumanize anyone who challenges you. You call them anarchist or sock or whatever. Because then you don’t have to argue with what they actually said. You argue against the person.

                      The only person who looks like an ass when you do this is you.

                    4. Loo at sarcasmic defend unreason created sock trolls to boost web traffic.

                      Poor unreason. Almost sad as they burned thru the idiot donations.

        2. Could everybody please stop referring to David Nolan, and the Nolan chart? Hihn will hear it, wherever he is, and show up. Please, God, no!!!

          1. Its that saying a certain name into a mirror 3 times?

  10. Mayor Busybody simply can’t stop telling others what to do. It seems to be an obsession with him—or maybe, a compulsion too. 

I gained insight into this when I returned to a New York Times article from 2009 that described Bloomberg’s eating habits.

    “He dumps salt on almost everything, even saltine crackers. He devours burnt bacon and peanut butter sandwiches. He has a weakness for hot dogs, cheeseburgers, and fried chicken, washing them down with a glass of merlot. And his snack of choice? Cheez-Its.”

    Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) is about control. Controlling one’s out-of-control thoughts, feelings, and behavior by attempting to control his external environment.

    Consciously or unconsciously, those afflicted do this in vain, to the point where they feel unable to control the compulsion as well (as in excessive hand-washing).

    Most sufferers aren’t dangerous unless they have 65 billion dollars and a God-complex.

    The Times went on to report this delicious insight:

    “…he (Bloomberg) is known to grab food off the plates of aides and, occasionally, even strangers. (“Delicious,” he declared recently, after swiping a piece of fried calamari from an unsuspecting diner in Staten Island.)”

    Behavior like this exhibits a staggering and extreme lack of boundaries. The Times seems to only snicker at this, but it’s painfully clear that Bloomberg has great difficulty respecting the basic boundaries of civil society. No wonder it’s so easy for him to help himself to your freedoms and your choices when he can’t stop helping himself to your calamari.

    1. Such behavior is also a symptom of closeted homosexuality in men. They try to control everything around them and are extreme neatniks to cover up who they are.

      1. Just look at the guy’s face. He’s queerer than a three-dollar bill.

    2. He’s said he eats so much salt it burns his lips. I think he views controlling an entire population as a substitute for controlling himself.

    3. They’re incapable of self-control, project it generally upon humanity, then advocate external authoritarian control because of a view of humanity as lacking self-control.

    4. Well, then there is hope – he is 78, and with those eating habits, maybe he will die.

      If that piece of shit ate calamari off my plate, I would be in jail for assault, and he’d be in a clinic getting his broken nose fixed.

  11. Reminder: We are now in day #3 of the Reason blackout of Trump making a deal to end the war in Afghanistan after 18 years.

    1. Crickets from green groups as Trump makes U.S. ‘global leader in emissions reductions.’ “Under President Trump, the United States led the world in reducing carbon-dioxide emissions in 2019, but don’t expect Greta Thunberg to give him a hug any time soon. International Energy Agency data released earlier this month showing that U.S. emissions dropped by 2.9% last tear failed to make an impression with Democrats, environmentalists and climate activists, who either shrugged off the data or argued that Mr. Trump’s climate-denialism was somehow thwarted.”

      It’s all about control. They’ll cheer authoritarian measures that don’t reduce emissions, and ignore or denigrate free-market measures that do reduce them. Because they’re just commies with a green shell.

    2. Fair point. Now that the weekend is over, I hope Reason denounces Drumpf’s cowardly “cut and run” approach as vigorously as they denounce his tariffs.


      1. Is that sarcasm?

  12. I am reading a book right now “The Men and the Moment” about the 1968 presidential election and it is uncanny how much Bloomberg’s campaign mirrors Nixon’s outreach to white suburban voters. Of course, Juul has replaced LSD as the biggest parental fear. But the fears of guns and Black people (school integration) are still there. The two men also have similar tin woodsmen personalities and are rather secretive about their tax records and personal lives.

    1. solid point. It would be beyond hilarious though for the Dems to give their nomination to a technocratic wall street billionaire who is best known for being tough on crime in his stint as mayor of New York and is obsessed with controlling peoples behavior at the consumption level because he thinks he knows best.

    2. Yeah, it’s not an accident that the biggest pushers of gun control right now are white middle-class suburban liberals.

    3. I can find the article/quote somewhere that the rioting at the 1968 Democrat Convention in Chicago was when many Americans decided they were voting for Richard Milhouse Nixon and others for George Wallace.

  13. Bloomberg is not a centrist nor a statist. He is an arrogant freedom hating bastard.

    1. Bloomberg is not a centrist nor a statist. He is an arrogant freedom hating bastard.

      He also reminds me of the news vendor in Watchmen, who considers himself an expert because he sees all the reported news. In the case of Bloomberg, his people are the ones reporting it, but he’s also a vendor of it, and he considers himself an expert on business and finance. And like the news vendor in the graphic novel, he can be laughably all over the map with his prescriptions.

      In 1985, could Moore and Gibbons have been thinking of Bloomberg? Named the character Bernard.

  14. Word. Christ, what an asshole. He makes Trump look like Mr. Rodgers. The only thing Mike Bloomberg doesn’t want to Ban are pictures of Mike Bloomberg.

  15. Sanders is a statist.

    Bloomberg is a Bloombergist. He has no intention of sharing power with anyone.

    1. I’m not saying there is a Jewish mafia but Bloomberg would share some power with certain people.

  16. Bloomberg doesn’t seem to have any coherent political philosophy, at least not that he has articulated. Many people will thus regard him as “non-ideological”, and therefore, a “centrist”. He’s taking advantage of people’s fuzzy and inaccurate notions of “politics”, or trying to, anyway.

    1. Fits him to a T. He could never fit in a political party except as boss.

  17. There is an article online that says that when the famous “Bloody Sunday” church in Selma invited Bloomberg there, his incredible response to them initially was “I have to beat Donald Trump, I don’t have time to go to your church.”

    I think I know now why this needle-dicked midget is flushing billions of dollars down the toilet on a hopeless campaign. It’s pure ego, nothing more. I think he’s enraged by the idea that there’s a New Yorker who’s a bigger big-shot than he is. Every day Trump is president is a grievous wound to that ego. He’s obsessed with Trump even more than the Reason staff is, and he just simply can’t take it.

    1. Yup, Mini Mike is salty that he isn’t the most successfullest, most billionairest NY billionaire. He lost the game of kind of the hill to Donald Fucking Trump.

      I bet it bothers him almost as much as the idea that someone out there is having a good time without his approval.

      1. Should read “king of the hill”.

        My kingdom for an edit button!

    2. He is not stupid. As a candidate he is free of all the campaign limits the democrats voted in to keep rich old white guys from buying an election.

      1. He’s stupid in the sense that he spent all his own money to get the publicity, Trump just put out hot takes on Twitter and got all of it for free.

  18. No, the right word to describe Bloomberg is “statist.” “evil”.


  19. So are most of the writers for this publication

    1. +100000

      1. – 1,000,000 = -900,000
        So, there!

  20. Mini Mikey reminds me of the 3′ tall king in Shrek … only less funny.

  21. They’re all statists.
    “Working within the system means to become a part of the system. When you go into the voting booth, the only meaningful significance that your action will have is to show that one more person supports the state”. ~Mark Davis
    “Grown men do not need leaders.” – Edward Abbey

  22. Maybe I’m just too young to know better (26, 2012 was my first election, voted GJ, voted Trump 2016 and plan to do it again 2020), but from what I’ve seen in my life, regardless of the level of politics, there has NEVER been a “good” candidate. There have been mostly garbage candidates who have one or two moments of clarity and that’s about it. Trump is the first one I’ve had the chance to vote for who was more than that. He has some good points and enough of them for me to actually want to vote for him instead of choosing the least damaging candidate.

    1. Keep voting for “the lesser of two evils”, and you will continue to get evil.

      US presidential elections are nothing more than a bunch of assholes fighting over who gets to hold the steering wheel when the bus drives off the cliff.

  23. Bloomberg is the worst of both worlds. Nanny state interventionism mixed with a dose of plutocratic crony capitalism.

    1. +1000

  24. Work from your house for two to six hrs every day, and start getting averaging 1000-3000 bucks at the end of every week. Read more information here>
    More Read Here

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.