Portland Protests

Sen. Brian Schatz Says 'Libertarians Should Be Freaking Out About Portland.' Where Has He Been?

The Hawaii senator fails to fully consider the causes of bad policing.


Sen. Brian Schatz (D–Hawaii) took to Twitter on Friday to share his thoughts on the current situation in Portland, Oregon, where animosity is increasing between protesters and police as federal agents have been forcing demonstrators into unmarked vans:

The senator didn't name names or provide any concrete examples of which libertarians he believes have fallen short of the proper outrage threshold. But Schatz's comments are part of a larger trend—one where libertarians have become the perpetual scapegoat for the failed policies of both the left and the right, even when they've been fighting against those very policies for years.

After George Floyd's killing, people on social media coalesced around a common refrain: "Where are the libertarians?" It's a bizarre response, given that libertarians have been beating the drum against police brutality far longer than either mainstream party. "Having left the issue on the back burner for so long," notes Reason's J.D. Tuccille, "some people don't want to admit that we were there ahead of them. Unfortunately, when it comes to police misconduct, we've been way ahead of them."

"As it stands in America today, the police aid in the trampling of rights on such a massive scale that there is hardly a word sufficiently descriptive," wrote Lanny Friedlander, the founder of Reason, back in 1969. "Limited liability? The price of retribution due to the victims of the crimes committed by police on any single day would be beyond calculation, yet not only do these crimes go undenounced (for the most part), and the perpetrators, police and politicians, unpunished, but, even worse, the victims are forced through taxes to finance the operation and salaries of the criminals."

What Friedlander expresses is not only true but also still relevant today. The only difference is that police reform now enjoys widespread support; during Friedlander's day, the opposite was true. 

Had Schatz wanted to engage with libertarians on the subject, he wouldn't have had to look very far. Just 11 hours before the senator sent out his rebuke, the Libertarian Party (L.P.) condemned the actions of the federal agents in Portland: "This is not how law enforcement should be conducted," the L.P. tweeted. "America is the home of the brave, land of the free—not the bastion of secret police. #Gestapo"

But aside from his fantastical suspicions of libertarians, what does Schatz believe? The senator has been a vocal proponent of criminal justice reform. Like so many, however, his understanding of the subject fails to consider the fact that bad policing is in major part a result of bad laws, some of which he's supported.

In a 2014 Senate debate with Rep. Colleen Hanabusa (D–Hawaii), his challenger said she supported allowing states the choice to legalize marijuana. Schatz wasn't convinced, according to the Honolulu Star-Advertiser. "Schatz said he does not think Hawaii is ready to legalize marijuana," wrote the paper, "but does believe there needs to be a national conversation on drug laws that are 'incarcerating young men and women and ruining their lives.'" How Schatz intends to untangle the two remains unclear.

The senator has a similar stance on methamphetamine, which has become a lightning rod issue in the state amid rising overdose deaths. "Some of the strategy's goals mention meth as an example of an illegal substance that the federal government will interdict. This is not enough," he wrote in a letter to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) in December 2019. (Emphasis mine.) "As ONDCP, along with your partner federal agencies, responds to the opioid overdose epidemic, it is imperative that you also prioritize efforts to stem and reduce meth misuse, addiction, and deaths."

It's fair to take issue with the increasing hostilities in Portland while coming to varying conclusions on drug enforcement, which, on its face, sounds unrelated. Yet it's impossible to avoid the reality that more laws mean more interactions between police and the public. Those interactions can turn violent and deadly—something libertarians have been talking about for decades.

In 2019, the senator received a 100 percent rating from the National Organization for Police Organizations, a group that lobbies on behalf of police officers, police unions, and other related law enforcement groups. Also of note is his state's horrendous record on civil asset forfeiture, which allows police to seize assets from people who have not been formally charged with a crime. Gov. David Ige, a Democrat, last summer vetoed legislation to reform the practice. Schatz should have been freaking out!

Though Schatz introduced an amendment last month to curb police militarization, he has voted in support of the National Defense Authorization Act, the law that emboldens such militarization, in 2017, 2018, and 2019. He can criticize libertarians all he wants, but we can at least be glad he's caught up to us now.

NEXT: COVID-19 Diagnostic Testing Is About To Really Rev Up

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. HEADLINE: Unidentified Federal Agents Are Detaining Protesters in Portland.
    Accompanying photo: Agent with face fully exposed, in uniform with U.S. Border Patrol insignia and an identifying number.

    1. Here is what they are responding to


      1. Did you post the wrong link?

          1. I earned $5000 ultimate month by using operating online only for 5 to 8 hours on my computer and this was so smooth that i personally couldn’t accept as true with before working on this website. if you too need to earn this sort of huge cash then come and be part of us. do this internet-website online═════► Home Profit System

    2. Because narratives matter more than facts.

      Emotion over logic.

      1. Since I started with my online business I earn $90 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it out.

        FOR MORE DETAILS….⇢⇢⇢⇢⇢⇢⇢⇢Rich Life.

    3. They refuted a stock photo of a Border Patrol agent, which has nothing to do with the accusations being made.

      1. Every photo posted has had patches visible. Just because you are an idiot doesnt mean things are unmarked.

        1. This the video that has been widely discussed. Don’t tell me you haven’t looked at it yet:


          1. Lol… the video with the agents in camo woth large yellow lettering saying Police on their chests?

            Look you dont have to prove you’re dumb. We already know.

            1. The point, which you very well know you are evading, is that they have no more identification than “Police”.

              1. Oh, so you’re saying they are marked then and not unmarked.

                And yes, they have patches on. They do not have to identify more than the police in public. This is largely due to the doxing efforts of antifa. But you know this. And you admitted to lying.

                1. As a libertarian, I do not remember there being any discussion about the importance of being able to hold individual police officers accountable for their actions and how that balances out against protecting the office from doxxing.

                  Police across the country unilaterally decided it is OK to remove all personal, agency information from their uniforms, even when they are also masked.

                  There are ways police officers could be identified with enough information that they could be identified in the case they commit abuse.

                  There is no reason at all not to identify their agency.

                  1. Exactly. We don’t want the type of Police involved to be Secret.

                    1. Then you are in luck, they aren’t.

                  2. “There is no reason at all not to identify their agency”

                    It’s on their fucking shoulders.

                  3. “Police across the country unilaterally decided it is OK to remove all personal, agency information from their uniforms”

                    You have provided only evidence to the contrary.

                2. like…grammar police?

            2. Police need to identify themselves. If it makes their job a little harder, tough shit.
              I’d like to see more of a crack down on looters and rioters, but the police still need to abide by the law and constitution and be accountable.

              1. Good point, Zeb. Thanks.

  2. Why would I, a Libertarian, freak out about cops in uniform legally arresting people or detaining them safely for questioning as they are irrefutably doing in Portland?

    1. Cool. And if it turns out the accusations that they have been kidnapping people, with no identifiable uniform and no warrant, would that concern you?

      1. “And if it turns out the accusations”

        “And if it turns out Bush is actually a lizard”

        1. White knight loves to use “what if’s” and try to trick people into agreeing with him. But he’s not very bright so it never works.

        2. I think that police snatching people up off the street is a bit more plausible. It’s not like it’s something that has never happened.

      2. I will decry it IF it turns out that that is actually true. Just like I decried the Obama administration using a known fake dossier to instigate spying on a political campaign.

      3. I am not TdmC, but my answer would be yes, absolutely, that would concern me. If they were detaining people who were peaceably protesting something, that would be a big problem too. If they were arresting people who were “protesting” by breaking things and harming people, maybe not so much, though.

      4. What if it turns out they’re really shape shifting skrulls? Then what?

    2. I hate both the cops and Antifa so I say let them kill each other then the rest of us can get on with life peacefully.

      1. That isn’t going to work. There are way more cops than antifa.

        1. Well then each Antifista will have to step up and take out more cops.

          1. That is called suicide by cop or if you are a coward you’ll give up when cornered. Then spend the rest of your life in a Super Max until another Hillbilly Whore Hopper or protomarxist occupies the White House.

        2. So you’re saying you’re stupid AND lazy.

      2. I thought you were against the initiation of force.

  3. Dumb drama is dumb.

    What facts are you trying to hide behind the stupid drama? And why?

    1. A regular reader I see.

  4. Hawaii’s cream-of-the-crop ladies and gents …

    1. “Schatz shits self”

      1. “Film at 11”

    1. Best news I’ve heard all day

  5. What would a Hawaiian democrat know about big or little ell libertarians?

  6. “Sen. Brian Schatz Says ‘Libertarians Should Be Freaking Out”

    This fucking putz thinks on the reg dope smokers freak out?

    1. Portland is out of smoke?

    2. They most certainly could. From bad acid, bath salts, krokodil, etc. What kind of pussy libertarian limits himself to weed?

      1. So you’re saying you’re a lightweight who needs better weed.

    3. I’ve never even tried alcohol, let alone weed or any other such thing. Still in favor of legalizing it, even though I think anyone who does it is a complete asshat.

      1. Why are you bragging about this and judging others for doing perfectly normal things? I judge you for being sheltered. If you’re a Mormon, my apologies. In that case I also judge you for believing in superstitions.

  7. What the Trump administration is doing should be illegal but isn’t, and the reason it isn’t illegal is because, far as I know, the Democrats haven’t introduced a bill to repeal the section of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 that makes it legal. If Nancy Pelosi wanted to introduce a bill to repeal it, she’d have done it already.

    Getting that bill introduced and passed isn’t the responsibility of libertarians. There is exactly one Libertarian in the House of Representatives. Maybe it’s the Democrats who should be freaking out. It’s unnecessary to wait for the Supreme Court to declare that part of the Homeland Security Act unconstitutional. Why don’t the Democrats simply pass a bill to repeal it and send it to the Senate?

    I suspect the reason is because Nancy Pelosi is only too happy to see the pro-anti-fa faction in the Democratic Party taken down a peg by Homeland Security.


    Regardless of whether President Trump wins or loses, Nancy Pelosi is likely to abe challenged for the Speaker’s chair in the House by people representing the Democrats’ increasingly radicalized constituency. President Trump is doing Pelosi a big favor by taking anti-fa down a notch. Nancy Pelosi and the establishment Democrats might prefer to see anti-fa and the social justice voters who support them left to twist in the wind and become disillusioned with elections entirely.

    There isn’t anything about anti-fa and their ideological supporters that’s good for Nancy Pelosi in any way.

    1. Why should it be illegal for the federal government to use federal law enforcement agents to defend federal property where local officials refuse to do so?

      1. “The Secretary may designate employees of the Department of Homeland Security, including employees transferred to the Department from the Office of the Federal Protective Service of the General Services Administration pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as officers and agents for duty in connection with the protection of property owned or occupied by the Federal Government and persons on the property, including duty in areas outside the property to the extent necessary to protect the property and persons on the property.

        (2)Powers.—While engaged in the performance of official duties, an officer or agent designated under this subsection may—

        (A) enforce Federal laws and regulations for the protection of persons and property;

        (B) carry firearms;

        (C) make arrests without a warrant for any offense against the United States committed in the presence of the officer or agent or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if the officer or agent has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing a felony;

        —-40 U.S. Code § 1315, Homeland Security Act of 2002


        Is carrying a can of spray paint while wearing a black hoodie and walking towards a public building a felony in Portland?

        If not, then isn’t that usually just a citation offense at best? If you want to arrest someone for an infraction or a misdemeanor like that, you’d usually need an arrest warrant, right? The reason they don’t in this case is because of that law. And some of these people are apparently being arrested blocks away from federal property, where Homeland Security wouldn’t normally have any jurisdiction.

        I’m not arguing that federal agents shouldn’t be allowed to arrest people for the destruction of public property right in front of the agents’ faces on federal government property. But they don’t need this law in order to do that. This law lets them arrest people for things that would typically require an arrest warrant. That law was an emotional overreaction to 9/11, just like the Patriot Act and the AUMF for Afghanistan, and it should be repealed just like those others.

        That being said, the people who are saying that what Homeland Security and the Trump administration are doing is illegal, here, are missing the point. What they’re doing is legal (even if it shouldn’t be constitutional, it hasn’t been declared that yet). And the best reason to repeal that part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 is because without that part of the law, arresting protesters like that wouldn’t be legal.

        1. Vandalizing public property is a felony in most states. And they are trying to burn down the courthouse. That is a felony last I looked.

          1. But the arrests in question–the ones I’m questioning–are arrests that happened blocks away from public property. If it weren’t for that law, they wouldn’t even have had juristiction.

            And it wasn’t that the people who were arrested were in the act of committing a crime. The cops had reasonable grounds to believe a crime had been committed–not probable cause!

            “Vandalizing public property is a felony in most states. And they are trying to burn down the courthouse. That is a felony last I looked.

            I bet “street art” isn’t a felony in Portland, and Homeland Security agents have no need for the section of the law I cited to arrest someone they observed to be in the act of committing arson or a felony on public property. That arrest doesn’t require any special law at all.

            1. Have the actors arrested never been in the middle of the riots? Do criminals never flee? Where they are arrested at has no bearing if they committed a federal crime or not.

              1. Actually, that law I cited expands their jurisdiction to places where they wouldn’t have jurisdiction otherwise.

                Incidentally, the AUMF that authorized Afghanistan authorized the president to attack anyone anywhere in the world forever–so long as he (or she) determines that they’re in some way associated with Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

                It is entirely possible to both support war in Afghanistan and oppose giving the president that much power in perpetuity.

                It’s also possible to want Trump reelected, to despite anti-fa, and to objectively see that this law is bad and should be repealed.

                One of the great things about being a libertarian capitalist is that it’s unnecessary to defend everything President Trump does. You can actually condemn one or any of his decisions and still support his reelection because the question at this point isn’t whether President Trump is a libertarian capitalist. The question is whether the left is rife with authoritarian socialists, and the answer is “yes”.

                President Trump can be wrong about this and still be head and shoulders better than the progressives.

                1. Would upvote if I could!

              2. It certainly has bearing on whether or not there is probable cause to believe they were part of those actions.

                1. No it doesnt.

                  Cops identify suspect in riots, see him flee, pick him up a few blocks away outside of the crowd.

                  The location or the arrest has no bearing.

                  You’re just wrong.

            2. There’s also the fact that the president outright stated that he’s targeting the protesters en masse for vaguely defined collective crimes as a political act. He did make it into a reality TV dog and pony show, of course. “I have big plans for the protests. Just watch.”

        2. It says any offense or felony not just felonies.

          1. Yeah, that’s the point.

            They were expecting Al Qaeda to be targeting buildings of significance to the American people–even as symbolic targets. They wanted Homeland Security to be able to arrest suspicious individuals without an arrest warrant, even if what they were doing wasn’t necessarily a felony.

            That this law is now being used to target American protesters rather than terrorist cells is unsurprising, especially considering that they used the AUMF in Afghanistan to justify using the NSA to violate the Fourth Amendment rights of hundreds of millions of Americans. It’s more or less the same thing.

            Pass a law to protect children from child molesters by putting people on sex offender lists, and they will use it to ravage high school girls for sending pictures of themselves to their boyfriends. Make a law to protect us from international terrorists in 2002, and they’ll use it in 2020 against American born protesters–as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow. I suppose it’s a paradox that unintended consequences are entirely predictable.

            Regardless, my understanding is that if the Portland police were to see someone spray painting on a building, they might make an arrest. If they saw someone in a hoodie carrying a can of spray paint away from a wall that looked like it had been recently spray painted, they might issue a citation–if it isn’t a felony. If they wanted to arrest the person in that situation, they’d take the evidence to a judge and get an arrest warrant.

            As you said, the feds have jurisdiction in an undefined area around the public buildings in question, they don’t need to get an arrest warrant, and it doesn’t matter whether we’re talking about a felony or an infraction–because of this law. Suddenly, walking around with a can of spray paint becomes a federal offense when it wasn’t before, and the rules that govern due process in your state apparently go out the window–because the federal government says so.

            Imagine they’re doing this to the Bundys when they’re protesting at a park in Oregon, I’d say the same thing I’m saying now–this may be legal, but it ain’t right. If no one at the ACLU or anywhere else can find a good enough case to get his overturned, then we need to repeal the law. It’s a bad law. Destroying public property is already against the law, all this law seems to do is water down or violate our due process rights in the name of fighting terrorism.

            1. Post of the day. The supreme example of “never let a crisis go to waste” was 9/11.

            2. Ken, you’re straight up lying.

              “That this law is now being used to target American protesters rather than terrorist cells is unsurprising,”

              1. Maybe he’s just mistaken. Or you are.

        3. Federal laws seem to often be made deliberately very broad in scope and lacking in specificity, maybe this is to allow prosecutors maximum leeway in getting grand jury interpretations to generate indictments?

          Under the wording of this law, if there’s even one U.S. Marshall, A-USA/deputy or ICE liasion assigned to work in that courthouse, then this law would arguably authorize DHS agents to “arrest without warrant” someone they see defacing the building (or any groups who they believe might be going to deface it, since that could technically meet the criteria for a “conspiracy” charge).

          It’s definitely a bad look for any administration to actually act on this law, but having such a law in force protects the one who does choose to act on it.

    2. Most of the congressional Democrats are like the Democrat establishment was during the Democrat Convention of 1968, when the Democrat establishment was bashing in the heads of the New Left as the New Left was protesting the Democratic Convention.

      “Isserman (2001) reports that the New Left “came to use the word ‘liberal’ as a political epithet”.[46] Historian Richard Ellis (1998) says that the SDS’s search for their own identity “increasingly meant rejecting, even demonizing, liberalism.”[47] As Wolfe (2010) notes, “no one hated liberals more than leftists”.[48]


      The Democrat establishment has seen this all before, and they know that anti-fa is their enemy. The Democrat establishment has even less love for anti-fa than the Republican establishment had for the Tea Party.

      Think of it this way: if Trump weren’t bailing out the Democrats by fighting anti-fa, what would the Democrats do? Would they confront anti-fa themselves? Even the mayor of Seattle eventually became embarrassed enough to act. What President Trump is doing is saving the Democratic establishment from a ton of embarrassment in an election year, and that’s why the Democrats aren’t acting to save anti-fa.

      1. If Biden is elected President, Antifa will either knock all of this off overnight or end up doing very long prison terms or dead. A Democratic President would have the media cover to murder these people if he wanted. Most people think Antifa will suddenly stop if Biden wins. I think they are way too stupid for that and will continue and end up dead or in a supermax federal prison. Life is really hard when you are as stupid as Antifa is.

        1. This is a good point I hadn’t thought of. I think BLM, and most of the professional race-grievance groups in general, no matter how seemingly “radical,” are smart enough to understand their place in the grand scheme of things–their place on the plantation so to speak. Antifa are just dumb white monkeys and clowns.

          1. They should know – look how fast the mayor of Seattle clamped down on them once they threatened *her* home.

            Until that point she was taunting Trump about sending in the Feds. As soon as her skin was threatened she used the apparatus of the state to shut that shit down.

            1. Except they looted Amazon last night and injured a dozen cops.
              Though it is true that they weren’t at Mayor Jenny’s house

              1. It is not as if Seattle’s government likes Amazon, except as taxes to be harvested.

        2. Exactly right. A Democratic administration will swing the bat very hard, and anyone who isn’t fully in line– like Antifa– will eat it, very hard.

          1. Stop! Stop! I can only get so hard!

        3. “Most people think Antifa will suddenly stop if Biden wins. I think they are way too stupid for that and will continue and end up dead or in a supermax federal prison. Life is really hard when you are as stupid as Antifa is.”

          They’re like the Weather Underground.

          They’re the IRA wing of Sein Fein.

          Once Sein Fein achieved political power, they had to disarm the IRA.

          When the Cultural Revolution became too much of a political problem and Mao died, the army and the party turned on the Gang of Four.

          Anti-fa is basically like the Brownshirts, which were used primarily to smash stores up, counter protest against the Party’s enemies, and especially to intimidate people into silence. Anti-fa’s list of enemies is different, but their tactics are pretty much the same. Oh, and anti-fa has this similarity with the Brownshirts:

          “Many of these stormtroopers believed in the socialist promise of National Socialism. They expected the Nazi regime to take more radical economic action, such as breaking up the vast landed estates of the aristocracy, once they obtained national power.[19]”


          As soon as Hitler came to power, he executed the leaders of the SA in the Night of the Long Knives. Once you’re in the Executive chair, the last thing you want is a bunch of people running around either threatening to riot or rioting.

          The Democratic party is doomed to confront anti-fa–unless president Trump saves them. And like I said, I’m not sure he should do that. Maybe he really should wait until either the Democrat mayors and governors ask for him to send in the National Guard or until the American people demand it.

          1. I’m not sure the “let the blue cities burn” strategy has been a good one electorally–even the “moderate” one of letting the public get a good look at Democratic urban leadership before charging in himself; let alone one that waited patiently even beyond that until the Dems invited him in. When they ask him, it’s not going to be some humble and humiliating “save us, Donald” moment from them; they’ll do it amidst taunting him about his lack of national leadership without batting an eyelash. The Coulter-Cernovich type “Trump is a pussy” school of ultra-MAGA opposition, Trumpism without Trump if you will, certainly thinks inaction makes him look weak. I think that’s quite plausible especially when rioters have been attacking the Federal property that he clearly has the duty to defend.

            (Though that crowd of critics has its ridiculousnesses too. I don’t know what Trump should do in general, TBH; I just do think he probably really is losing badly.)

            1. They have been taunting him from the beginning. Why do you think they were putting “BLM” on the street in front of Trump tower? They are begging the AntiFa nuts to come bust up his tower.

              I had thought that Trump was smarter than to rise to their baiting.

              I agree that there may be a political cost to Trump leaving the blue cities to twist in the wind, but there is of course a cost to intervening. And I think it is easier to get the message, “I want to help these cities, but the mayors won’t let me” through the Media ECM than it is to provide a nuanced description of why it was justified for some guy to get his skull caved in by a rubber bullet.

              1. I don’t think even Antifa is dumb enough to think Trump Tower is a soft target. And it seems to be well and earnestly, and visibly, protected by tons of NYPD whose presence has only increased there since it has also become necessary to protect the BLM graffito. I think said “mural” is mostly for its own sake. Strictly performative, like most gestures BLM.

                I still can’t see it. Who precisely does the crackdowns alienate who aren’t 100% lost to Trump anyway? The blacks and Latinos who are entertaining voting for him? The white working class (urban and otherwise)? The coveted suburban soccer moms who aren’t hardcore pink-hat-and-Subaru set and are famous for secretly or not-so-secretly craving nothing so much as safety and order?

        4. Except Biden won’t be calling the shots. He isn’t calling the shots now. The dementia has seen to that. The person calling the shots will be the leftist he appoints as his running mate, and the leftists egging that person on to let the riots continue.

          These people want to destroy the country and turn it into a authoritarian socialist state. Why on Earth would you ever think the rioting is going to stop if Biden is elected. If anything, it will increase, and the authorities will be ordered to join in and help the rioters.

        5. Biden might not get the kind of fawning media fandom that Obama had with outlets like WaPo going back to keeping democracy in the dark like they did from 2009-2015, but there’s a decent chance that the narrative on a lot of specific policies will shift from things being “the opposite of what America is about” to being “a neccesary hard choice made by reluctant leadership”.

      2. “What President Trump is doing is saving the Democratic establishment from a ton of embarrassment in an election year, and that’s why the Democrats aren’t acting to save anti-fa.”

        This. My main point in all of this has been to say that Trump has handed the Left exactly the get out of jail free card they wanted.

        Prior to today, he could easily point out that everything bad happening- every looted building AND every injured LARPer- was the fault of the Democrat-run cities. But by sending in his own troops, he has given every Mayor and their willing press accomplices the excuse they needed to say this is Trump’s fault.

        Now, if the court house gets burned down, it is his fault. If someone is killed defending it, it is his fault.

        Right, wrong or indifferent, Trump just took ownership of a dumpster fire.

        1. Under what circumstance was Trump going to get away with blaming Democrats if Federal court houses got burned down? I didn’t notice him doing much winning at all under the former strategy.

        2. As someone who lives in the Pacific Northwest, I can assure you that the prevailing non-leftist opinion out here is that Trump should have sent in the troops months ago to fuck the leftists up. If anything, letting it go on this long has undermined him…he needs to take a hardline and shut the rioting down and punish the rioters.

          And frankly, if the local and state Democrat officials try to get in his way, he needs to start finding crimes to charge them with.

          1. People have a right to protest in this country. Normal people shouldn’t have to protect the country from libertarians on this count. But go on and join the Republicans on the shitpile of history if that’s what you want.

        3. Right but you’re an idiot.

          1. And you reveal a sparkling intellect with that comment.

      3. That would be an accurate assessment, but I don’t think Democrats even take much notice of a FOX News QAnon boogieman. You can’t whack-a-mole all that insane shit.

        It’s astute to note that unlike with the GOP and Tea Party, Democrats have nothing to gain by supporting radicals who don’t even vote for Democrats.

    3. I disagree that this is bad for Trump. This may be good for Pelosi, but it’s also exactly what Trump needed right now. For weeks, Americans have been watching their cities burn and the President, the most powerful man in America, was doing nothing about it but complain. Now, thanks to the histrionic response by the left over a few arrests, it looks like he is doing something. And regardless of how bad the left will try to make it seem, the ‘secret police’ narrative won’t gain any traction outside the far left because it won’t look disproportionately bad compared to the rioting.

      So Trump gets accused of being an authoritarian dictator (appealing to his base), because he sent federal police to quell riots in Portland (largely appealing to suburbia). All that’s left is for him to say something inflammatory about this to take the spotlight, and we’ll also get a week of nonstop Trump on the 24 hour news, cementing this win.

      1. Anything that saves the Democrats from making fools of themselves is bad for President Trump from a reelection perspective.

        IF IF IF the only options were:

        1) The Democrats make fools of themselves by letting Portland, Seattle, and other Democrat cities go to rioting and cancel culture hell–all the while insisting that America’s racism is to blame.

        2) The Democrats are so embarrassed by what’s going on in their cities that they’re finally forced to turn on the “protesters” they’ve been calling something like the Summer of Love and throw them in jail–causing a huge rift in the Democratic party rending the social justice warriors away from the establishment Democrats.

        3) President Trump takes the heat for bringing Democrat cesspools under control with tactics that everyone on the left denounces as unconstitutional, unjust, and unfair.

        . . . I would argue that options 1 and options 2 are superior to option 3 from a Trump reelection campaign perspective. Remember, the difference between winning and losing isn’t to impress the people who are already disgusted with anti-fa. The difference between winning and losing is getting people to vote for you who might not vote for you.

        1. I think the point you’re missing here is that yes, antifa running around and taking charge of leftist cities makes the Democrats look like fools, but it also makes Trump look like an even bigger fool because he’s the President. He’s supposed to be the one in charge putting antifa in their place, not the other way around. Nothing is more lethal to a Presidential campaign than the candidate not looking like a President (ie. a leader in control of the situation), and having literal terrorists asserting sovereignty over American cities is the very antithesis of being in control of the situation.

          Don’t forget also that elections aren’t just about getting people that wouldn’t vote for you to vote for you, it’s also about getting the people who would vote for you to get out and vote for you. This is a massive problem for the Biden campaign, where none of the people that hate Trump or just vote Democrat every time are actually excited to get out and vote for Biden. They can’t be relied on to make it to the polls if, for example, it’s rainy that day or a TV drama is airing that evening or it’s just been a long day and they’re tired. And I think there was a very real danger of that happening to Trump’s base, because if your guy is the President and he can’t do anything about your cities burning and your statues being torn down, then what’s the point of having your guy as the President?

          1. Are you sure that Trump is going to be able to quell the Riots now? Because if I am a Democratic Mayor, the last thing I want to do is let Trump succeed. He has a few hundred US Marshalls/DHS agents, who have no knowledge of the people, the area, or anything else. They cannot stop the rioting by themselves.

            In two weeks when Portland is burning again (maybe because leaders signal to Antifa that other parts of the city don’t have police presence), Trump not only gets slapped for being an Authoritarian, he is slammed for being an ineffectual Authoritarian.

            1. Again, he’s only being slapped for being an authoritarian by the people who have been saying he’s authoritarian since he was elected. This won’t gain traction outside of the TDS crowd.

              As for what happens next, that’s a good point. I’d say it almost doesn’t matter. If riots continue near the federal buildings, federal police can keep arresting the rioters. If the riots move on to a different part of the city, he can rightly point out that he can quell the riots, but the Democrats at the state and local level can’t or won’t (Democrats actively aiding rioters would only underscore this point). As long as he keeps doing something about the riots every so often, he keeps his position as the anti-riot candidate.

              1. He can actually do pretty much whatever he wants to quell civil disorder, and he doesn’t have to stop with protecting federal buildings. Ever read the U.S. Code where it pertains to the Insurrection Act? His authority there is extremely broad. Basically he’s allowed to go in at his discretion and restore law and order.

                1. And as a libertarian you sleep well at night knowing that.

            2. So it’s Trump’s fault if the riots that have been going on for 2 months don’t stop immediately?
              That is completely irrational

              1. This is the stupid part. Portland citizens are protesting the Portland police, and by extension the Portland government. Yet the leaders of Portland are cheering on the protests. THEY ARE PROTESTING AGAINST YOU! Yet they are trying to make the whole thing about Trump.

                If police reform was so important, maybe your “leaders” should have done something before things started burning.

                1. It’s all psyops

          2. There is something to the argument that because the President gets blamed for everything, he should take responsibility for everything–Barack Obama was never more unpopular than when he was sitting on his hands and breathing through his nose while the Gulf oil spill kept gushing.

            In this case, though, I don’t think it would matter when Trump acted as much as it mattered that he acted decisively and before the election. How long did CHAZ last–was it three weeks? That’s about how long he can let things go before a progressive government like the one in Seattle finally acts for itself. He could let it fester like that and still have plenty of time to move in decisively.

            The other component of this is that, ultimately, we’re not really talking about political motivations for most of these people. The political motivations and the protests are more like symptoms of the disease. The real cause of this social unrest is the economy, the lock-downs, and the virus itself. The people who are rioting are the people who are most impacted by the economic slow-down (white lefty kids who work at Starbucks included), and that issue isn’t going away until the economy comes back.

            He might end up putting fires out only to see them pop back up again elsewhere until the economy comes back. He could end up in a wild goose chase. The same thing is happening with violent crime all over the country for the same economic reasons. Murder and robbery rates are soaring out of control all over the country. Putting down this riot or that riot isn’t the answer–especially when it’s organized by professional protesters like anti-fa. The long term answer is the economy, and the short term question is–Who do want swing voters to blame for the ugly stuff that happens between now and November?

            1. It doesn’t matter who’s responsible for the ugly stuff. Facts don’t matter in an election, perception does. And people perceive the President to be the man in charge of the country. If Trump were just a candidate running for office, he’d have the luxury of sitting back and tweeting about how he’d do things so much better than the idiots in charge. But now he’s the idiot in charge and it falls on him to at least look like he’s doing something. It doesn’t matter that the riots will continue until the economy recovers, ignoring the riots does nothing about the immediate problem of houses and businesses getting torched and people getting assaulted or murdered. Arresting some rioters may not stop the riots, but as long as there are riots, people want an anti-riot president, and that means a president that does something about the riots.

              1. Exactly this.

            2. “The other component of this is that, ultimately, we’re not really talking about political motivations for most of these people. The political motivations and the protests are more like symptoms of the disease. The real cause of this social unrest is the economy, the lock-downs, and the virus itself. The people who are rioting are the people who are most impacted by the economic slow-down (white lefty kids who work at Starbucks included), and that issue isn’t going away until the economy comes back.”

              I think you’re overestimating this a little bit. Yes, it has an effect, but I don’t think the lockdowns are the primary factor.
              The political is personal and the personal is political.
              Do you think the protesters are people who would be happy with their lives, and their social station, if only there had never been a lockdown and they hadn’t lost their Starbucks jobs?
              Do you think they have strong work ethics and wouldn’t participate because they needed to get up for work the next day?
              Do you really think they’ll leave the streets because the economy is good?

              Yes, the economy and lockdowns created conditions conducive to months long tantrums, and your presumption is logical.
              But we’re dealing with people, a movement, that is literally irrational. They are out there emoting and, more than anything, protesting their own shitty feelings and nihilistic belief system.
              Their low wage jobs don’t bring them contentment. More than being driven by economic woes from lockdown, the unique factor is that a mass movement provided them the opportunity to vent their collective resentment.

              It’s not like they’re struggling financially, and have been getting more than $2500/month in gov payoffs this entire time.

              No, what we’re seeing is the will to power of pure decadence – and the collective nervous breakdown of progressivism: a belief system that’s not sustainable, because the perspective it provides requires more and more psychological self-deception as it’s continuously contradicted by reality.

    4. This is merely a transparent attempt to convince libertarians to vote democrat.

      1. With the editors at Reason only too happy to help, (especially if it gets them that job at Salon or Mother Jones.)

        1. Why stop there? The WaPo and NYT are now full woke. They don’t give a shit about journalism anymore. Lefty partisan shills have a welcome mat there. And the writers of Reason know that’s where the big paydays for them are, so they’re more than happy to swing left.

  8. Libertarians should be freaking out that there are violent mobs of fascists that have been terrorizing Portland for going on two months now. So he is right but not in the way he thinks.

  9. It would be best if, having established that this Senator is indeed a hypocritical buffoon with a superficial, left-center-establishment, state-bootlicking concept of standing up for civil liberties, libertarians were buoyed enough by confidence in our own moral superiority to resist the infantile challenge to be reflexively “freaked out” by whatever shit he admonishes us to be freaked out over. Are Trump’s actions in Portland really so inappropriate? What specifically is it? Are suspects disappearing after they’re forced into these “unmarked vehicles,” for example? Why otherwise is it so significant that they are “unmarked,” as is so darkly insinuated? Isn’t that just rather normal procedure?

    1. Nothing. These people are rioting and attacking federal agents and being arrested and released by the next morning.

    2. The part about the vehicles being unmarked is a minor detail. The main points of the accusations are that the Federal agents are not identifying themselves, not telling the people they are nabbing why they are being detained, are holding them in an undisclosed location to intimidate them, then dumping them back on the street.

      1. Is that all?
        Or is there more to the narrative you’ve been handed, something interesting?
        I mean, couldn’t your superiors at least cook up a little “torture” story?
        Low energy

        1. A little waterboarding would spice this story up real nice. Give Red Cortez a parking lot to scream at and all that.

    3. I thought the same thing. I don’t know exactly what kind of vehicles federal agencies have available but I’ve never seen a car emblazoned with FBI to Serve and Protect with a rack of flashing lights on the roof. Pretty sure the FBI arrests people all of the time and transports them in (scare quotes ahead) “Unmarked Vehicles”.
      Something sinister may or may not be going on but this kind of reporting is just silly.

    4. Yeah, they don’t realize we’re pissed about the government abducting people into vehicles no matter what is printed on them. If the PPD refuses to work, SOMEBODY is going to step in. If it’s not the feds it’s gonna be somebody who just starts piling bodies in the street.

      1. The police are there to protect the rioters from the citizens. Look what happened in Little Korea in 1993. Race riots as far as the eye could see. LAPD high tail it up town to Hollywood to protecc the Jews and the millionaires so the Roof Koreans start capping looters with their M1 Carbines. The riot literally stopped in it’s tracks. Made the city look even more ridiculous. They had to arrest a Korean shop owner to save face.

        1. Yep. Us old farts remember LA very well.

  10. Why should libertarians freak out over Portland?
    The BLM thugs and the Antifa soy boys have been doing that for weeks.

    1. “Doing that”? Can you be more specific?

      1. Rioting.
        Oh, wait.
        I meant to say peacefully protesting, redistributing the wealth for the common good and painting street art on everybody’s else property
        My bad.

        1. The “doing that” that Federal agents have been accused of is picking people up off the streets, nowhere near any Federal property, in uniforms that give no indication which police agency they are with and no way to identify the officers. The accusations go on to claim that they are taking people with no explanation of what they are being charged with to an undisclosed location, intimidating them for a while, then dumping them back out on the street.

          1. Oh, you’re ready moving goalposts. Lol.

            1. What goalpost did I move?

              1. The one that’s up your ass that you’re spinning in circles on.

          2. None of which is illegal.

            1. It very much is illegal and they are going to be prosecuting the goons.

          3. We realize you’d like everyone to operate as if the rioters’ accounts of their feelings are reality, but they are the least trustworthy source possible.
            So no, not playing that bullshit

  11. Portland burns, Trump does nothing, Trump incompetent, fails to act ‘Libertarians Should Be Freaking Out’ Orange man bad.
    Portland burns, Trump sends in Federal Police, Trump is dictator, overstepping authority, ‘Libertarians Should Be Freaking Orange man bad.
    What is a libertarian to do?

    1. Who said any of the things in your first paragraph?

      1. Your mom.

  12. Perhaps the most constant attack on libertarians is saying that libertarianism leads to Somalia

    Portland is basically a play action Somalia, with bands of communists running around doing whatever they want.

    1. er, cosplay, not play action.

      1. NYC is turning into a statue-of-liberty Somalia, so you’re not far off.

      2. “er, cosplay, not play action.”

        You sure they’re not just trying to get the linebackers to bite, to open up Wichita on a seam route over the middle?

    2. That is arguably a description of about nine blocks in Portland.

  13. Libertarians should have been freaking out before the feds got there. I’m not sure why the freakout is predicated solely on federal intervention (due to a collapse of civil exchanges) and not predicated on the violence of the populace.

    This goes back to idealism vs reality. Government is not the out coercive force in Portland. Antifa and the street violence is likely more coercive than government at this point. Libertarianism does not require blinders against all forms of coercion and violence, yet a large portion of the idealist only care about governmental forms.

    1. Is it not possible to be concerned about both?

      1. When you are, let me know. But you have only shown concern in one direction, the one that makes your leftist buddies look bad.

        1. You have purposely made sure not to acknowledge that I have expressed concern about both. As sarcasmic said elsewhere today, you don’t debate in good faith.

          1. Because you havent. Here is the funny thing, you could link to your posts demonstrating concern instead of defending the violence. An I dont mean some facial concern, but actual concern with what can be done to protect business owners and those assaulted.

            Also it doesnt matter what you said on your primary name. Lol.

            You couldnt even answer a simple question in the round up thread, so I’ll ask again.

            If the protestors are blocking the police from engaging the rioters, are they violating the NAP? Yes or no.

            You havent claimed to want rioters arrested (but you did claim to have claimed you did), so how can rioters be stopped given protection from your peaceful protestors.

            By the way… someone hiding behind a sock calling others as not having good faith arguments is fucking hilarious. Lol.

            1. Didn’t you ask someone else, like sarcasmic, that question? If you asked me I didn’t see it.

            2. “ Also it doesnt matter what you said on your primary name. Lol.”

              Like sarcasmic said, you don’t argue in good faith. I haven’t posted any opinions under any other name.

            3. “ If the protestors are blocking the police from engaging the rioters, are they violating the NAP? Yes or no.”

              Probably yes, but depends a bit on exactly what the police are doing. I’d they are being abusive, then no.

            4. “ By the way… someone hiding behind a sock calling others as not having good faith arguments is fucking hilarious. Lol.”

              Except, I haven’t done that.

              1. #triggered

  14. Well, Billy Binion, I AM concerned as a libertarian. I am concerned our society has become choosing between Portland’s leaders tolerating looting, arson, assaults and destruction of government and private property. I am concerned that Seattle’s leaders tolerated all that, plus murder.
    So what is the answer Billy Binion? Do libertarians support total chaos (and doesn’t that make us anarchist, not libertarians?), or do libertarians support aggressive Federal policing? It seems, for now at least, they are our only two choices. What do you support right now, (no avoiding the question like changing this or that law later), chaos, or policing?
    I patiently await your analysis, because I truly am not sure which one is worse, now and in the long run.

    1. False dichotomy. A libertarian wants police that conduct themselves according to the rule of law.

      1. Yet if you read my comment it is the only choice right now.
        Don’t libertarians want elected officals that follow the law too? Like mayors and city council members?
        Don’t libertarains want citizens that honor “First do no harm” and “your rights end where mine begin” and “my rights end where yours begin?
        You evade the question. Which is what I thought most would do.

        1. No because the law allows the government to initiate force like taxation and drug prohibition. Hell slavery is still legal as a punishment for crimes.

      2. A libertarian wants police who defend liberty, period.

    2. “Do libertarians support total chaos (and doesn’t that make us anarchist, not libertarians?), or do libertarians support aggressive Federal policing?”

      I support the Federal Government staying the fuck out if it. That doesn’t mean I support anarchy and chaos, it just means I believe that the Federal Government isn’t a good remedy to the situation.

      Guess what? I don’t support various African countries’ attempts to take land from farmers for redistribution. I don’t support China’s attempts to subjugate Hong Kong. I don’t support Venezuela’s bullshit dictator. I also don’t want the Federal Government sending troops into those areas, because they will only make things worse.

      And part of the reason I don’t want to see the Federal Government in there is because I think it will cost Trump the election.

      1. I’m cases were the local government is in agreement with violent citizen groups you seem to also want no federal intervention based on your posts the last few days.

        You seem to be fine with conclusive anarchy.

        We have actual cases, like in Seattle, of someone being attacked by a group of antifa who pulled their gun in self defense being charged by the D.A. this isnt a case on isolation either. And now the D.A. in st. Louis against the couple defending their home.

        There are dozens of stories of local d.a. siding with antifa. You seem to think federal intervention is worse.

        1. The San Francisco D.A. used to run English language press for Hugo Chavez. He’s the son of the Brinks truck robber Weathermen, raised by Bill Ayers because his mom was in the slammer his whole childhood.

          If Federal intervention against the desire of local authority was appropriate to protect the blacks in the 1960s it’s hard to see how it’s off the table in this situation.

        2. “You seem to think federal intervention is worse.”

          Yes. These fuckers are absolutely trained to make the police look as bad as possible, and they have the complicit and active assistance of the press.

          Remember when Bush went to Iraq, kicked ass, took names, and then 2 years later lost the House and Senate? Trump is giving the left exactly what they want. They will make these leftist cities his quagmire.

        3. If the local authorities don’t want the feds involved then it is unconstitutional for the feds to get involved.

          You people. That (R) is goddamn magical. Jesus Christ.

      2. I overall agree with your assessment. But. The protesters/rioters are specifically seeking to damage federal property. The local cops might be able to prevent that. But they’ve apparently been told to stand down by the local politicians. I don’t see how the federal government can ignore the situation at this point.

      3. Sorry, but “stay out and let the violence and vandalism continue unchecked” isn’t a reasonable answer unless you’re a sociopathic monster or a marxist (but I repeat myself). The locals entrusted with preserving the peace have instead fanned the violence so somebody needs to step in and nip this in the bud before it gets too out of control.

    3. I’d hardly call the Federal response at this point “aggressive”.
      I don’t see how it could be any more restrained, short of pulling a Minneapolis/Seattle PD and totally abandoning the field

    4. I am concerned about that too. I find myself wondering which group will be the first to stick a gun in my face and demand “you’re either with us or against us…choose!”

    5. Is it total chaos? Total? Or is it a spike in violence caused by social unrest confined to like a block and half?

      Stop believing what race-baiting propagandists on the internet trip you what’s happening. Find their sources. It seems rather important from a libertarian perspective to get this right.

  15. You cannot have a free society when many of its citizens are rioting looting and burning. It is false to continue to pretend these are peaceful protestors as the term has been overused to great extent on this website.

    You also cannot have a free society that embraces any form of leftist ideology or economics. They don’t work, they are proven to fail every time. There is no middle ground. Libertarians know first and foremost that freedom and capitalism are intrinsically linked together. All other systems are more flawed and require authoritarian diktats to work in their limited and obtuse form.

    Rail on police abuse and overreach all day long – that is not the problem now and you know it. That was the spark that lit the fuse that exploded the power keg of marxists. You don’t join your political and ideological enemies just because you have common cause on police abuses and think you can separate yourself after they gain political power. They are already bitch slapping libertarians even before they get elected. Imagine what they will do to you when they have real significant and substantial political and police powers.

    1. What percentage of the protesters are engaging in vandalism, would you say?

      At what percentage does it become OK to judge them collectively? 5%? Do you think as many as 5% of the BLM and associated protesters are committing vandalism?

  16. Hawaiians should be freaking out about all the Haole carpetbaggers in public office.

    1. I’am made $84, 8254 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business. Here what I do,.for more information simply open this link thank you… .ReadMore.

  17. Boy, a quick google search of ‘portland federal agents’ shows the entire media has become an outrage echo chamber.

  18. My biggest disappointment here is that the Trump administration has fallen for Ted Wheeler’s honeypot. I’m not sure why Trump showed the correct discipline with Jenny Durkan, but he had to know this would be the result.

    Portland should be left to burn. But Democratically, natch.

    1. STAY AT HOME & WORK AT HOME FOR USA ►Check it out, and start earning yourself . for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lotHere>>>Click For Full Detail.

    2. There is no evidence of this conspiracy theory that Wheeler and others are promoting the rioting to make Trump look bad.

      1. How do you know this?

        1. Because the best way to make trump look bad is to shut up and let him put himself in front of a camera.

      2. Nothing but their actions

    3. The Seattle rioters never went after federal property. The Portland rioters did.

      Regardless, Trump is certainly under obligation to prevent vandalism and destruction of federal property, especially from a violent mob like Antifa. The fact that they had to convince pregnant women to act as human shields shows how desperate they’re getting.

      1. Desperate pathetic flailing.

        Don’t choose the wrong side next time. Try that.

  19. Every month start earning more cash from $20,000 to $24,000 by working very simple j0b 0nline from home. I have earned last month $23159 from this by just doing this 0nline w0rk for maximum 3 to 4 hrs a day using my laptop. This home j0b is just awesome and regular earning from this are much times better than other regular 9 to 5 desk j0b. Now every person on this earth can get this j0b and start making dollars 0nline just by follow instructions on the given web page>>>ReadMore.

  20. “Where are the Libertarians?”

    That’s just “Democrat” for why don’t rationales get emotional and flail pointlessly at problems.

  21. Charlotsville was a peaceful protest.

  22. Is the good Congressman going to freak out when President Warren or Harris deploys federal agents to round up preppers and NRA members?

    1. He’ll want to proclaim a federal holiday for “our heroic federal protectors”.

    2. If it’s bad, it’s bad when you do it too. Someone else’s alleged future hypocrisy doesn’t take any responsibility away from you.

      Did all of you learn moral philosophy from a Disney villain?

  23. “But Schatz’s comments are part of a larger trend—one where libertarians have become the perpetual scapegoat for the failed policies of both the left and the right, even when they’ve been fighting against those very policies for years.”

    I don’t hold libertarians responsible for the words and actions of others, but I do hold them responsible for their own words and actions. Reason.com over the past month or so has been routinely downplaying, when not excusing, riot and general lawlessness from these “mostly peaceful protesters”. The performance of “Our American Cousin” on April 14, 1865 was “mostly peaceful” since there was only one violent act out of hundreds of spectators.

    Ignore the fact that libertarians are really only comfortable with using government power in defense of person and property, because you certainly wouldn’t guess that from reading Reason.com during this whole mess. Burned out businesses and assault of random citizens hasn’t seemed to be a concern of this rag.

    I regret ever donating and I’m seriously reconsidering continued reading.

    I don’t know how we got to a place where it is out of bounds for the government to arrest and try people who engage in assault, arson, vandalism, and destruction of public or private property.

    1. Reason has made it crystal clear from the beginning of all of this that property rights aren’t important to them.

      1. Is it the federal government’s job to enforce property rights? And why don’t they have to wear a uniform or have provable cause?

  24. “Did you, along with Jyllands-Posten and others, personally research the specifics of the Charlie Hebdo shooting on Al-Qaeda’s target list, and the motives Al-Qaeda decided to place them there? No I did not personally investigate any terrorist activities.

    But in the course of the years, I have read scattered press reports and comments. Within days of Denmark’s announced participation in the war last summer, jihadists were threatening action against Denmark. If you agree with Brendan that it’s hatred of free speech among jihadists that is so important, then make your case. I’ve yet to see a convincing one. Letdigital

  25. I ran against Democrat Ron Wyden as a Libertarian oin 2004, specifically because he voted for the Homeland Security Act, and the USA PATRIOT Act. I stated at the time, the first sentence in my Voter’s Pamphlet Statement, that this was why I was running against the incumbent Democrat.

    It would be a rare Libertarian who didn’t see this coming, just as it would be a rare Democrat who did.

  26. The most striking thing to me about everything since the killing of George Floyd is how I’m suddenly hearing friends telling ME about exactly the same things I’ve been mentioning to them for YEARS and which they had been dismissing with a hand wave and telling me were just anecdotes. “Police brutality,” “militarization of police,” “the war on drugs,” “state monopoly on the use of force,” “the erosion of civil liberties.”

    Who could have imagined libertarian ideas would gain such currency so quickly? People like this chump senator are just idiots who have not been listening at all—or liars who know damn well libertarians have been complaining about this decades.

    1. On top of that, you know perfectly well they won’t do anything to truly solve these problems. They just want to damp down the bad publicity so they can go back to using federal LEOs against their enemies.

      1. It’s all the fucking libertarians on this site thinking this is OK. Call liberals future hypocrites all you want but maybe spare a minute to clean your own goddamn house. There might be people out there who want to be libertarians, if only the community of libertarians weren’t such authoritarian rightwing cunts.

        1. You really haven’t been paying attention all these years.

  27. “Sen. Brian Schatz Says ‘Libertarians Should Be Freaking Out About Portland.’ ”

    True. Individual’s private property is being destroyed and no protection for it is being provided by the people hired to protect it.

    Or maybe “Life, Liberty, and Property” doesn’t apply any more.

    1. On of the greatest mistakes made by The Founders was using “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” instead of Locke’s phrase “Life, Liberty, and Property”.

  28. “Police brutality,” “militarization of police,” “the war on drugs,” “state monopoly on the use of force,” “the erosion of civil liberties.”

    And most of them are still only concerned with the first two. IMO the war on drugs is the biggest contributor to the problems between police and communities, and it’s getting very little, if any, discussion.

    1. That’s how you know it’s not about fixing the problem. Ending the drug war would be the best step we could take on a HUGE number of issues, but DC is basically silent on the issue.

  29. The senator thinks that the comments section on Reason is a fair indicator of libertarianism. How wrong is that dude?

  30. It’s hilarious that authoritarian statists suddenly care about what libertarians think.

    1. I think I liked it better when people just didn’t think about libertarians.

    2. they need their scapegoats where ever they can land them

    3. Do you not want people to care what you think?

      Why isn’t it hilarious that libertarians think it’s OK for federal goons to kidnap Americans?

      1. Libertarians don’t believe federal goons should even exist. But you already knew that.

        1. But since they do, might as well crush some civil rights protesters, am I right? It’s tradition!

  31. There’s been a lot of subtle jabs against libertarians. Schatz, like the media, is trying to frame this election as the lesser of two evils. So desperate to see Biden win. A note to Schatz and Dems: nominate a better candidate.

  32. I’m not a fan of police in general, or of some of the tactics they use in protest situations. But I think my outrage at the little shits playing revolutionary and destroying property and assaulting people is a little higher right now. Laws protecting life and property are the ones the police should be enforcing vigorously.

  33. “Where are the libertarians we’ve been ignoring?”


  34. Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie mocked concerns about Trump’s authoritarian statements as “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” Justin Raimondo called for violent revolution if Trump was impeached. Stefan Molyneaux, Peter Thiel, Steven Moore, and so many others went full Trump. And there is a haunting silence from Institute for Justice, Federalist Society, Cato, and so many other libertarian organizations right now who should be screaming at the top of their lungs about federal abductions. Libertarians have and continue to be not only worthless, but liabilities in the age of Trump.

    1. and so many other libertarian organizations right now who should be screaming at the top of their lungs about federal abductions

      Who exactly has been “abducted”? Where is the evidence?

      Libertarians have and continue to be not only worthless, but liabilities in the age of Trump.

      I’m glad to hear it. I’m glad that libertarians don’t jump when leftists like you try to use us to realize your destructive master plans.

      As for federal intervention in places like Portland and Seattle, I generally oppose it. But the federal government intervening to stop street violence when radical local left wing authoritarians fail to do so simply isn’t very high on my list of things to worry about.

  35. It’s our sad scapegoat politic that tries to blame this on police. Police are just a reflection of us as they are our sisters, brothers, parents, children, friends, and neighbors.

    All the get tough on crime bills of the 90’s, such as those championed by Biden have paid dividends toward the unrest today. Add in the surge in violent no-knock warrants, unconstitutional asset seizures, unjust over-criminalizing drug war and police militarization and it’s a recipe for eventual revolt. These tools allow a magnification of the accidental, unethical, and illegal acts by police.

    The politicians have been the craftspeople and enablers of the current situation and now they cowardly throw the police under the bus for their own carelessness and callousness.

    1. +100000000

    2. No time better than the present to fix these problems then?

      1. The people of Portland, Minneapolis, Chicago, NYC, etc. are welcome to defund their police. Whether that “fixes” any problems or makes them worse remains to be seen.

        It’s BLM and Democrats that are trying to turn these local issues into national ones; it’s BLM and the Democrats that falsely claim that there is systemic racism and that federal action is needed.

  36. Libertarians should be freaking out about Portland. — Brian Schatz

    Left wing concern trolls like Schatz should STFU.

  37. Do we actually know that federal agents are mysterious kidnapping random people on the street and taking them away in white vans? Sounds rather urban legendy …

    The people in the city are being allowed to run amok and destroy, burn and loot property. If the feds are there guarding federal buildings and resources, that is 100% appropriate since the local city leadership seems content to let the violent mob “do as they do”. It would not be cool if fed agents are going off property to engage with protesters but there should be no problem whatsoever with them guarding federal property.

    1. The people in the city are being allowed to run amok and destroy, burn and loot property. If the feds are there guarding federal buildings and resources, that is 100% appropriate

      I think libertarians can legitimately disagree on that point. However, no matter which side one comes down on, I have yet to hear a libertarian argument why challenging the legitimacy of federal agents intervening in the riots in Portland should be at the top of the libertarian agenda. It is neither politically smart, nor does it clearly relate to any libertarian principles either way.

      1. Lol what the fuck.

        1. Well, Tony, you’re welcome to attempt making an argument.

        2. Here’s the libertarian solution, Tony, in case you are confused about this:

          (1) privatize the roads and city center of Portland
          (2) the HOA governing the roads and city center decide who gets to use the space for speech, or even enter the area
          (3) the HOA hires private security to enforce the decisions of the property owners
          (4) the HOA is legally liable for failure to protect property rights

  38. Good catch Billy! The Kleptocracy orders the initiation of force based on superstition, pseudoscience, “expert” witness prostitution and cooked data. Suddenly whoa! An equal but opposite reaction by force and the politicians giving the original orders are shocked, surprised, dismayed!! The next round of schadenfreude is on me.

  39. unreason posts at least one article full of lies per daynow.

    Democrat enclaves with police states abusing Americans. Democrats then vote for Democrats again.


  40. Guess this guy doesn’t read the comments.

  41. A prevailing sentiment among libertarians here is that they think it’s OK for Trump to send in paramilitary goons to deal with the protesters because they don’t like their politics.

    Class, I realize it’s only 3rd grade Civics, but today I’m going to explain to you why Marxists are allowed to have a first amendment too. Assuming any actually exist.

    You people have thrown away any moral authority you ever had on local rights and constitutionalism on this one sick episode. For the worst goddamn human in existence. If the election were remotely close maybe you’d have some sick cynical pragmatic reason for abandoning all your principles, but here you are, facing a probable loss, willing to chuck it all anyway. I’ll remember that you did this and that you basically admitted openly that it was all in naked servitude to a political party.

    1. Under a libertarian form of government, Portland city center would be privately owned and protesters would have no rights of protesting there.

      Under the original form of government of the United States, the Constitution applied to the federal government only, and on top of that, only property owners were eligible to vote. That is fairly close to a libertarian form of government.

      What you favor, namely a form of government in which groups of people have a legally guaranteed right to occupy places that taxpayers pay for, to inconvenience residents and property owners, and to have taxpayers pick up the cost for their speech, is neither a libertarian form of government nor the original form of government in the US. Still, that happens to be the form of government we live under right now. But under this form of government, the federal government also has the power to deploy federal agents to protect federal property, to suppress insurrections, and to enforce federal law. You can argue at length about whether the deployment of federal agents is a good idea or a bad idea, but that’s not a libertarian question, since the question wouldn’t even come up in anything even remotely resembling libertarian forms of government.

      Personally, I don’t think Trump should deploy federal agents; cities like Portland should serve as a bad example. What Trump should do is cut federal funding of any entities in such cities and push for laws that would make the city leaders of places like Portland personally liable for any harm and financial losses resulting from their failure to protect the rights of their citizens.

      1. It’s a bad idea from a constitutional perspective and is completely counterproductive to the cause of de-escalation. If you want to know what it’s about, just listen to Trump’s words and stop making up after-the-fact justifications for federal kidnapping of protesters.

        The only reason any libertarian is conflicted on this is because most of you have let the most failed political party in modern history convince you that its mouth words about freedom are actual beliefs about freedom they plan to enforce. You must appreciate how sad this all is from the perspective of someone on the outside of this sick propaganda bubble.

        1. The only reason any libertarian is conflicted on this is because most of you have let the most failed political party in modern history convince you that its mouth words about freedom are actual beliefs about freedom

          I’m not “conflicted” about it at all because it’s a false choice. It’s like asking me whether it is preferable from a libertarian point of view for a socialist state to starve opponents of the regime or shoot opponents of the regime.

          I told you what the libertarian position is: public spaces and policing should be privatized. Once you do that, your false choice disappears.

          I also told you that I agree with your policy preference that Trump shouldn’t send federal agents to Portland, See, the people of Portland should suffer the consequences of their political choices and serve as a warning to the rest of the country. A couple of years of Tony-style “de-escalation”, with rioters occupying the downtown and businesses and middle class families fleeing the city should drive the point home. See, we do agree on policy after all, Tony!

    2. Uh oh. I’m afraid the commenters of Reason may have lost Tony’s respect.

      If only they had known ahead of time…

    3. Stop it. Get some help.

      1. Stop voting. You’re making everything terrible.

        1. You can see what happens when people vote like you do: Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Detroit, Minneapolis, etc.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.