Jo Jorgensen

Jo Jorgensen on Black Lives Matter: 'I Think We Should Support the Protesters'

But she warns against "opportunistic people hijacking the movement.”

|

It's Thursday in Nashville. Libertarian presidential nominee Jo Jorgensen has parked her blue campaign bus in Centennial Park for her "Real Change For Real People" tour. There are tables with masks and hand sanitizer. Supporters gather early, their excitement seemingly unaffected by the pandemic precautions. A few cars slow down to observe the gathering in the park. After a mic check, Jorgensen is introduced and begins to speak.

Almost immediately, her speech covers the two most pressing topics of the summer: criminal justice reform and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Back in June, Jorgensen attended a Black Lives Matter vigil for victims of police brutality. Her presence there received mixed reviews, with libertarians who distrust the official Black Lives Matter organization for some of its political and economic views facing off those who believe libertarians should be present in the Black Lives Matter movement protests. (The differences between Black Lives Matter the organization and the movement are explained here.) Regardless of the potential backlash, Jorgensen doubled down on her stance.

"We need change, and I'm glad [the protests] are getting the attention," Jorgensen tells me on the bus after the speech.

Jorgensen says that the Libertarian Party agrees with the national Black Lives Matter organization on several issues, such as the drug war, no-knock raids, and qualified immunity.

"But their answer is more government," she says, and "big government is what got us here to begin with."

Jorgensen mentions a meeting she had with a Black Lives Matter activist in Tulsa, Oklahoma. (The activist was not affiliated with the official Black Lives Matter organization.) They discussed the government's role in discrimination, with Jorgensen pointing out that the buses in the famous Montgomery Bus Boycott were publicly run and that segregation laws were enforced even though black residents made up the majority of the ridership. "Now imagine today, if Uber decided to discriminate against the majority of their customers. What if they treated their best customers that way? They would go out of business," she argued. Jorgensen says the activist told her that the experience was "opening his eyes."

"Libertarians have been talking about these issues for 40 years," she says. "I think we should support the protesters, but, at the same time, get rid of the opportunistic people hijacking the movement." Jorgensen points to the people who have used the protests to loot and commit violence: "They are going around basically inserting themselves into peaceful protest. And I've seen many clips of the protesters saying, 'Stop it. Go away. You're not helping us. We don't want you here.'"

When the demonstrations first began in May, black organizers and protesters across the nation desperately attempted to keep the violence in check. In one video, D.C. protesters hand-deliver a young man to nearby police after seeing him destroy a sidewalk. In her firsthand account of the Nashville protests, author Nancy French tweeted a video of a black protester arguing with white protesters over property destruction. 

"We need to do what we can to keep the protests on target," Jorgensen adds.

The conversation then shifts to the COVID-19 pandemic.

"We're all adults, and it shouldn't be against the law to be stupid," Jorgensen says. 

Jorgensen notes that with personal freedom comes responsibility. While she doesn't support mask mandates ("unless we're talking about a government building") or even a forced vaccine in the event that one is developed, Jorgensen sees private companies enacting mask policies as a sign that most Americans are taking the pandemic seriously.

"That just shows what libertarians have been saying for decades, which is just because the government doesn't tell you to do it doesn't mean it won't get done," she says. "We still have entities who are requiring us to wear masks. We don't have to wait until the government tells us to. But this way, we have choice."

Jorgensen adds that private companies wouldn't enact mask policies if they thought doing so would harm their profits: "I don't think they'd be requiring a mask if they thought that people would stop shopping in their store and they'd go out of business. So ultimately this is coming from the individual."

What does Jorgensen think the executive branch should be doing in the pandemic? "I think the president has the obligation to lead the country and to get information out there to warn people," she says. She is upset at President Donald Trump for saying, "If you don't have [COVID-19] symptoms…don't get the test." Given the disease's asymptomatic spread and long incubation period, she says, this was irresponsible advice.

Jorgensen also notes the variety of ways the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other federal agencies have restricted access to mass testing. Such testing, she notes, contributed greatly to South Korea's flattening of the outbreak curve.

"We lost tens of millions of jobs," she says. "If we had the testing out there, if we didn't have the FDA obstacles, if we didn't have so many other government obstacles, we could've had widespread testing. And then we could have known which people should have stayed home and which could go out."

Our conversation concludes with a question about the current debate over voting by mail.

"It's fine with me if we have mail-in votes," she says. "As long as we do it through FedEx."

Advertisement

NEXT: Trump's TikTok, WeChat Ban Won't End Up Blocking Fortnite and League of Legends

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. Damn. I thought she was the Libertarian Party candidate.

    1. You’re confusing her with Bill Weld.

      1. Hillary is a good kid.

        1. I make up to $90 an hour on-line from my home. My story is that I give up operating at walmart to paintings on-line and with a bit strive I with out problem supply in spherical $40h to $86h… someone turned into top to me by way of manner of sharing this hyperlink with me, so now i’m hoping i ought to help a person else accessible through sharing this hyperlink.

          ===============► JOBS82.COM

          1. Fuck off Spammy McSpammington

            1. That costs extra on her cam show.

              1. Google easily work and google pays me every hour and every week just $5K to $8K for doing online work from home. I am a universty student and I work on my part time just 2 to 3 hours a day easily from home.DFe Now every one can earn extra cash for doing online home system and make a good life by just open this website and follow instructions on this page…….Click here

            2. Google easily work and google pays me every hour and every week just $5K to $8K for doing online work from home. I am a universty student and I work n my part time just 2 to 3 hours a day easily from home. Now every one can earn extra cash for doing online home system and make a good life by just open this website and follow instructions on this page………Click for jobs its a limited offer.

      2. She’s trying to get more than they typical 3% of the popular vote. Someone needs to tell JoJo that BLM isn’t just a cute slogan. It’s an organization that is actively seeking an anti-capitalist authoritarian government. Even if you can come up with one or two points of agreement, aligning yourself with an organization that is contrary to everything you stand for is stupid on a stick.

      1. By supporting an organization, BLM, that is racist? Cocked eyebrow.

        1. BLM is a racist organization? By what twisted definition of racism is that true?

          1. A perfectly sane one wherein many of the proponents hate white people for the color of their skin?

          2. The one were they have labeled all white people as the problem and have stated white people need to quit their jobs, lose their property, and give them money. Pretty sure if the TEA party had said something similar about black people you would have had no problem labeling them racist.

            1. Oh, you are going by what Fox News told you about BLM. Because I just checked the BLM website, and here is a list of their principles. Oh snap, the word “white” only appears once on the whole page, in a call to “end white supremacy.” Nothing about all your bullshit made-up boogeymen.

              1. Yeah, that site is pretty thoroughly sanitized, that’s for sure.

                I see they’re still claiming that Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown were murdered. Lame.

                1. We can disagree on Michael Brown, but Trayvon Martin was murdered. He was stalked and killed when he confronted his stalker.

                  1. “Confronted” in this case meaning assaulting, knocking to the ground, climbing on top of, and continuing to beat on Zimmerman until Martin got shot. You just can’t stop lying, can you?

                    Martin got away. The stalking was over. He was right near his father’s house when, for reasons only known to Jeantel and Martin, he decided to turn around, retrace his steps, and run up to Zimmerman’s blind, dumb ass, covering about 75 yards to do it. Whereupon he started beating the shit out of Zimmerman.

                    Thug life, thug death. God only knows how many future violent crimes George Zimmerman managed to stop that night.

                    1. Amen. Why do people want to die in that hill? When there are legitimate cases unjustified use of deadly force by the cops. Like Eric Garner.

                      Chip just can’t help himself.

                    2. Zimmerman had no right to stalk Martin. We tell people to defend themselves. We tell them they can kill in self defense. But that does not apply to young black men. The violet crime here was Zimmerman killing Martin.

                    3. I guess if you ignore what happened in reality, mod, and simply go with your own prejudiced fantasy

                    4. It hasn’t even been established that Zimmerman “stalked” Martin. The prosecution accused him of that. But it didn’t have to be disproved by the defense, because it was utterly irrelevant to the case.

                    5. Notice how these “moderates” are always simping for the leftist narrative.

                    6. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

                      Here’s what I do………► Cash Mony System

                  2. The moderately progressive, reform-minded prosecutor who was elected to replace the guy who DID NOT PROSECUTE Darren Wilson – he just finished a 5-month long re-investigation of that case. He also decided NOT TO PROSECUTE. He didn’t even take it to a grand jury like the previous guy.

                    So we can disagree on Mike Brown, but everyone who matters agrees that you’re wrong.

                2. Michael Brown was not exactly a candidate for sainthood either, given the fact that he robbed a convenience store and physically roughed up and strong-armed the Convenience store owner, also a black man, who was half of Michael Brown’s size, build and weight.
                  Michael Brown was 6′, 5″, and weighed close to 300 pounds.

              2. You are going by what the left wing sources say about their left wing ally………………what could be wrong with that?

                BLM has cleaned up their website to reflect pablum, use the “way back” machine to see what they said before they hid their true beliefs.

                Hate whites, want to destroy the family structure (as good commies always want to do , so they can indoctrinate your children completely.) down with America, Marxism is the future, capitalism is evil, and other anti-america themes.

                Being a useful idiot or sock puppet is a normal thing for a young leftist to be.

                1. Great idea, and it is pretty different back in 2014, 15. In 2016 they made a configuration change to their site that largely kept the wayback machine from recording it.

                2. BLM has cleaned up their website to reflect pablum, use the “way back” machine to see what they said before they hid their true beliefs.

                  This is why Leftism will always lose in the end. They have to lie and obfuscate the truth to be acceptable, which of course, their beliefs are not.

              3. I don’t even watch Fox News.

                1. It’s always the progtard go-to. Idiots like Tony do that.

                2. Neither do I, frankly.

              4. White supremacy is a duplicitous phrase that intentionally conflates white supremacist ideology with a white majority and higher mean socioeconomic outcomes vis a vis blacks. The phrase justifies viewing all differences in socioeconomic outcomes as a result of racism, which is grade-school level social science at best.

                BLM endorses this anti-reason anti-racist racist ideology. It’s entire premise is based on a premise (blacks disproportionately killed by the state) that is not substantiated by empirical inquiry. Nevertheless, it’s an innately incurious movement that uses this flawed premise as a Trojan horse to advance it’s racist anti-racist agenda, leveraging white guilt and self flagellation for black gain.

                1. I think you are describing “white privilege”. “White supremacy” has long had the meaning of a belief, by certain white people, that the white race is superior. The latter term has been around far, far longer than BLM.

                  1. ^demonstrating why casting your motives as fighting “white supremacy” is such a hook for useful idiots

                  2. When “It’s okay to be white” and “All lives matter” are tagged as slogans of White supremacists, maybe their practical definition doesn’t match the dictionary.

              5. “The Libertarian Case for Affirmative Action and Reparations.”

                1. “Next on Reason…”

                  I wonder which of the writers here will get charged with defending that Nugget? Because you know it’s coming.

                  Christ, Bob Barr was a better candidate than this.

                  1. My money is on ENB, considering how consistently she parrots their tropes.

              6. “Checked the BLM website” ROFLMAO! Of course!

                And the DNC website doesn’t tell you that they support Antifa and BLM Marxists either. Doesn’t tell you they support a drastic switch towards the left side of socialism. Yet they do.

                You are a record level dumbass if you go to websites to affirm whether a group has an agenda with radical elements and presume everything follows.

                1. The irony here is that’s an overstatement about the Democratic Party, just like the other is an overstatement against BLM.

                  There are some in the Democratic Party that are so extreme. There are also a lot of moderates.

                  1. Not anymore. They’ve been gone for some time now. Unless you consider someone like Pelosi to be ‘moderate’. Which she is, only in comparison to ‘The Squad‘. Their kind are the future of the democrats. They are also why the democrat party must be destroyed.

                    1. If the future is black an brown, and black and brown folks are moderate, does that mean the future is moderate?

              7. If you really did check the BLM website, then you would have also seen where it says “white silence is violence,” where it calls for “a boycott of white capitalism,” and where it sells merchandise that says “As a white American, I acknowledge white privilege exists.” Sounds pretty racist to me.

              8. GO by the truth based on the BOJ stats that shows the premise of the BLM is false, it’s really Black Violent Crime that Matters, see
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_daDiI2M_c

                BLM is a Leftist distraction effort from the this truth you’re not supposed to know.

          3. The one where a self identified BLM protest ended up killing a white mother because she said “all lives matter”. The one where numerous BLM protestors and even the organization has told white people to shut up and get in the back. The one where BLM has said this time white voices don’t matter. The one were a number of self identified BLM activist have stated white people are defective and should go extinct. Shall I continue?

            1. Don’t bother. He wallows in his ignorance.

            2. I am skeptical about how much scrutiny was used in checking those people’s ties to the BLM organization, because I have seen so many examples here of playing really loose with who is affiliated with BLM.

              1. I’m sure there is no version of events where you would ever admit these things are true.

          4. The one where their own websight has outright racist statements

            1. Cite?

          5. The one where they believe that all whites are racist because they are white.

            1. All these “The One” comments would make great episode titles for a reboot of Friends on HBO Max. With an all BIPOC cast this time, of course.

            2. I’m pretty sure your “they” in that sentence is a really vague, hand-wave in the general direction of Black Lives Matter.

              1. No, dumb fuck. “They” refers to any progressive engaged in identity politics.

          6. because it’s based on race?

            1. According to that definition, complaints about racism are racist. And that’s what you are really after, isn’t it? An inversion of values where the criticism of the morally reprehensible thing you are doing is equated with the thing itself. Only thing will you have created a shell around your worldview that makes you immune to criticism in your own mind.

              1. No, we are after the idea that no person should be judged by their race. Even white people.

          7. I am going to be the outlier and sort of agree with you. They actually hate all lives equally but identity politics is a useful tool for them to get their political revolution.

          8. “whiteness is not humxness. infact, white skin is sub-humxn.”

            – Yusra Khogali, co-founder of BLM Toronto

            1. How does what even pronounce that nonsense?

          9. Are you stupid or just sound like you are? Read the damn website. Whites are the problem for the organization and most of the movement.

          10. Here’s how you can find out for yourself.
            Find any BLM protester and say to them, “All lives matter.”
            Watch as they flip out on you.

            Or, if you’re really brave, try saying “White lives matter.”
            Logically, if the saying “Black lives matter” is not racist, then the saying “White lives matter” is also not racist.

            Yet they will flip out on you if you say either one. Clearly, ONLY black lives matter to them.

      2. “libertarian ecosystem” what the hell is that (and I’m asking as a someone with a hard science background)? Is this the Nick Sarwark nazi under the bed world…communists and bosheviks were just misunderstood but if you don’t cow tow to the wokes you need to be thrown out of the party?

        Govt should not discriminate or pass laws forcing discrimination..beyond its called liberty and freedom of association. social outcomes that make you feel bad that are not caused by govt should not outweigh the bill of rights or our natural rights..

    2. Start making cash online work easily from home.i have received a paycheck of $24K in this month by working online from home.Click For Full Details.

    3. The business owners and employees are the ones to suffer ???I basically make about $12,000-$18,000 a month online. It’s enough to comfortably replace my I was amazed how easy it was after I tried it . This is what I’ve been doing old jobs income, especially considering I only work about 10-13 hours a week from home.Open & click to home article for more details!!!!!!!!
      CLICK HERE══════►►USA$ DOLLAR$.COM  

      1. GREAT COMMENT

        1. Yep.
          These spambots are beginning to be the most sensible comments here.

    4. #LibertariansForMarxistTerrorism

    5. She is. Her running mate Zippy is the CPUSA-Von Mises fusion candidate.

    6. Libertarians should be in on the ALL LIVES MATTER equally.
      Race based criteria needs to end.

    7. I left the Republican Party and came here.
      It looks like the Libertarian Party plans to never win an election, ever.
      Most of us “ normal” people are against police killing black people by choking them or shooting them in no knock raids.
      We are also against riots, looting, arson, and mobs attacking ordinary citizens.

      So, unless Libertarians come out against mob violence, there is no hope for the Libertarian party.

    8. ●US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours.Everybody can get this job now and start earning online by just open this link and then go through instructions to get started……….COPY HERE====►►Money90

  2. >>”I think we should support the protesters, but, at the same time, get rid of the opportunistic people hijacking the movement.”

    this person is running for president?

    1. She’s not wrong. In so far as we can agree to reform the criminal justice system, we should. But she admits that there is a fine line to walk with groups like BLM on that front. Sure, in tweets it comes off as full support. But in her longer statements she is quite clear about recognizing that we support moving to a similar goal, not that we support BLM in total. I don’t see her wanting to have BLM make the laws. In fact this article speaks about her trying to inform BLM members of the dangers of their whole philosophy even if it manages to get to to the right “end” in some cases. She is aware that how you get there matters (like masks… wearing one is a choice and shouldn’t be imposed but she and pro-mask mandate people share the same end… ending the ‘rona).

      And a protest that brings discussions about QI et al to the forefront is a good one. We can’t have a voice in a conversation that doesn’t exist… and that is a threat the riots pose… ending the window for conversation. We can support the opportunity the protest provides, not agree or support every protestor, and differentiate between protests and riots. None of those things are exclusionary. And she seems to understand that more than most… certainly more than any other option for POTUS at the moment.

      Doesn’t mean she’s perfect. But she is way better than many are giving her credit for. If she took most people’s advice here she would instantly shut down any access to large sections of black America. That is a politically and morally stupid thing to do.

      1. wearing one is a choice and shouldn’t be imposed but she and pro-mask mandate people share the same end… ending the ‘rona

        And by “ending the ‘rona” you mean supporting the objective lie that the ‘rona will end and that masks will have anything to do with it.

        1. Masks won’t kill the ‘rona, no. Neither does praying make the rain come. But if people do it… no skin off your back as long as it isn’t legally mandated. And people who pray to end a drought want it to end just like everyone else. No reason to be militant against them when the common cause is the point of a discussion. Now… if the praying types start advocating for laws, then by all means challenge them on THAT point… it can be done without losing a common end.

          1. Supporting marxist totalitarian movements is totes the path to liberty

          2. Making subtle points is lost on many commenters here.

          3. Thank you sparkstable.

            An actual libertarian joins the discussion.

          4. It’s literally, by your own admission, not a common end. One end is to pray, the other end is to achieve herd immunity. Saying they’re the same end is a flat out lie. More brazen and disingenuous than even the most cargo cult religion. Especially when your dumb ass acts like masks aren’t being enforced by law and at the point of a gun around the world.

      2. There is no fine line. The idea that BLM is a movement to reform criminal justice is purely a lie created to give cover to a racist, Marxist movement whose only goal is to destroy Western civilization. To the extent that she repeats that lie, Jorgensen is making herself a useful idiot for the post-structuralist, intersectional, critical theorist far left. I don’t want someone that gullible representing my movement on the national stage.

        1. BLM masquerades as a civil rights organization, but is actually a radical leftist, subversive, anti-liberty front for the Democrats (who share all of the same adjectives). For those people actually interested in civil rights and the issues that BLM pretends to be about, BLM is a hijacker that has injected itself onto the scene to reap that sweet, sweet guilty white liberal cash. The idea that black lives matter is uncontroversial (note lower case), but Black Lives Matter is about imposing Marxism and destroying the western liberal democracy, not civil rights.

        2. The way to handle that is to engage with them, agree with their public goals of stopping police brutality, and then congratulate them on obtaining their goals. Now, if they push further, they will lose a lot of their support since the majority of the supporters think they already won. They either have to either just take the victory or push further and further to try and convince people that things are still bad. The more extreme positions both lose them supporters and harden opposition, as their remaining positions are unpalatable or untenable.

        3. Spot on.
          Even libertarians who are concerned about police brutality and wish to march alongside BLM need to be aware that if the communists/socialists behind BLM gain power, they’ll INCREASE police brutality.
          At the very least, they will install secret police whose job is to disappear their political opponents. At the very worst, they’ll be murdering civilians by the millions.
          If you want less police brutality, you MUST keep any Marxist organization from increasing their influence and power. You can do this at the very least by simply not marching alongside them.

      3. Wait a minute! Mask wearing HAS to be imposed, for a reason: to protect both oneself, and others. So does social distancing of six feet or more. The people who refuse to wear masks and social distance when out in public are the ones who are causing this pandemic to not be put under control.

    2. Trying to be diplomatic, she is acknowledging that the initial goals of BLM were good (I don’t think we need to debate police brutality, qualified immunity, and other issues), but also warning that things have gotten out of hand. The way she phrases it also lets people save face by blaming “others” for “hijacking” the movement. She also participated in vigils and discussions, not the riots.

      If it was a normal situation, that would be a good answer that I would like from a presidential candidate. This isn’t a normal situation. The fact that she doesn’t address the violent riots happening in the name of BLM isn’t a small hole in her argument. It’s a hole big enough to fly a jetliner through.

      That being said, I think that the headline is incomplete to the point of being deceptive, and I am more than willing to entertain the possibility that the hole was created by the author, not Ms. Jorgensen.

  3. Riiiight it’s just a few. Obviously she’s not familiar with mob tactics.

    Anyway protest all you want. It’s going to make old people and whites vote for Trump in droves. Defund the cops and you’ll get even more minorities dumping the dems. Nobody wants to live in a shithole.

    1. And we old AND white people get to vote twice.
      (Or maybe more; the ballots keep coming in the mail)

      1. My grandfather, a lifelong republican, will be voting democrat this year.

        Bet he’s rolling in his grave.

    2. Not familiar with the black live matter mandate for years. The Marxist overthrow has always been their goal. If anything they have toned down the rhetoric on their website.

    3. Nobody wants to live in a shithole.

      Nobody with brains or self-respect, anyway. There’s millions of people living in the nation’s ghettos.

  4. I’d set the O/U at .3% of the popular vote.

    1. Set it where you will; it doesn’t matter.

    2. i’d take the over. more like 1 percent.

      1. Seems pretty optimistic to me. Don’t get me wrong, I plan on ‘wasting my vote’ on her, but I just don’t see much chance for (relative) success, regardless of her positions/messaging.

        The L.P. has historically experienced pretty steep declines in vote share when preceding tickets have done well, seems to hold true for all third parties. She and Spike have low name recognition with little perceived legitimacy. Also, I think Trump has the libertarian vote (to the extent that it’s a thing) pretty well split, and even a lot of left-leaning libertarians are all in on defeating Trump by ‘voting blue no matter who.’

        1. After all the nonsense about destroying the electoral college because of Trump’s popular loss, I’m not going to do any protest votes for some time.

  5. There are large numbers I think will vote for Trump

  6. It sounds like I might have to hold my nose and vote Republican this year. I was going to just not vote, but apparently I now have protest the party that I would otherwise considering off my ass for.

    1. I’m voting as many long termers out as I can. That is the only way to get the change. Got to be careful the newbies are not squad like though….

      1. That doesn’t really work. Newbies are dependent on their staff who are generally left of the politicians.

    2. Don’t worry, nobody here was worried that you weren’t gonna vote Republican.

      1. Remember, chipper doesn’t play for a team. He is just consistently siding with one team.

        1. ORLY, Jesse? Please show me a comment where I defended Democrats. I know your mind has only room for two categories, but some of us have room for more.

          1. You defend them, arguably, because all of your attacks are always aimed at conservatives and conservative affiliated groups. You couldn’t even condemn the AGs actions yesterday without whining that posters were more angry about her abuse of power than LaPierre’s alleged corruption (which she didn’t charge him with).

            1. Chipper Morning Wood———————
              August.7.2020 at 12:59 am
              It is interesting that even r/conservative, which is basically r/the_donald 2.0 and full of Trump worshippers, was full of anger at the NRA leadership for all this corruption. Only here, in this comment section, do you find nothing but fuming at the Attorney General and defense of the corrupt NRA, with no anger or outrage at the moral bankruptcy of its leadership. Draw your own conclusions from this.

            2. So you have nothing. Zero, zilch, nada. All you have is complaints that I only attack conservatives. Because your mind only has room for two categories, you conclude that opposing one side means I support the other side. If this comment section was full of socialists, I would point out their hypocrisy instead.

              1. Funny, you accuse me of only seeing the world in two sided, yet above you falsely accuse me of getting my talking points from Fox News and you love to label anyone who disagrees with you a Trump supporter. And considering I quoted you verbatim, I am pretty sure I don’t have zilch. You are crying because your hate having the mirror held up to you. As for seeing all shades, I doubt to many others would agree that you are more nuanced than I am. However, I am betting most would agree you tend to classify everything into a false dichotomy, especially when people disagree with you (see your comment above where you asked for examples of BLM racism, we provided them, and you attacked us for “using Fox News Talking Points” and accused us of wanting to shut down all discussion of race. That there is a prime example of using false dichotomies and a perfect example of how you tend to parrot the left, while attacking anyone even slightly to your right.

              2. If this comment section was full of socialists, I would point out their hypocrisy instead.

                Well yes, but only because you are a contrarian; not because you are principled.

                1. We do have some he rarely ever attacks, Tony, AmSoc, arguably ChemJeff, JFree, Mod4ever, Wearing it, etc. I’ve rarely ever seen him attack them, but I have seen him agree with them or defend them…

                  1. The fact that you think chemjeff is a socialist show the depth of your insane partisanship.

                    1. Like you, Chemjeff regularly gives the benefit of the doubt to the democrats, and also regularly attacks a Trump and the republicans.

          2. Maybe because anyone, even long time Libertarian posters, who dare question any of the “all the evils are Trump’s fault” narrative you demean and label Trump cocksuckers?

          3. Above, eunuch, where you pretend BLM isn’t an explicitly racist movement

  7. “It’s fine with me if we have mail-in votes,” she says. “As long as we do it through FedEx.”

    She hasn’t even been elected yet, and here she is engaging in crony capitalism.

    1. checks fedex stock …

    2. Ha
      The post office is a government boondoggle. We should just sell it.

    3. When the voting public absolutely, positively must be defrauded overnight. Fedex.

    4. The best way to fix the USPS is to return to the 19th century model, were post masters hired contractors to deliver mail.

      1. Beg to differ, that may be the 2nd best way. The best way is to get rid of it completely since its only purpose is to steal my money and then waste my valuable time and energy throwing away everything delivered. No need for a government middleman, the customer can just hire Fedex or UPS.

        1. Except the Constitiuton directs the federal government to maintain some form of postal system.

          1. The constitution empowers them to create a Postal Service, it doesn’t directly require them to create or maintain one.

            1. I stand corrected.

            2. You fucking morons who pretend that Article 1 Sec 8 is ‘optional’.

              No – the five words that introduce those enumerated powers are The Congress SHALL have power. LET me repeat that – The Congress SHALL have power. Do you fucking twits even know what SHALL means?

              There is no option re any of those specifically enumerated powers. They are REQUIREMENTS. There is no OPTION to have a defense. No OPTION to have a government money. No OPTION for bankruptcy courts. No OPTION for a weights and measures system. No OPTION for bankruptcies.

              Where the fuck do you assholes come up with this shit? Especially you people never seem to actually focus on eliminating the unenumerated powers and instead piss around with stupid theories about the enumerated powers.

              1. When’s the last time Congress granted a letter of Marque and Reprisal?

                Sounds like they are treating that power as optional.

              2. It at least implies that doing the thing is a good idea.

              3. Uhmm…

                “Nearly every jurisdiction has held that the word “shall” is confusing because it can also mean “may, will or must.” Legal reference books like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no longer use the word “shall.” Even the Supreme Court ruled that when the word “shall” appears in statutes, it means “may.””

                This is the legal definition of shall. I found this on the FAA website from March, 2020 explaining the legal meaning of shall and how the USSC has interpreted it.

                1. So once again Jfree goes of the deep end and ends up fucking wrong once again.

                2. I referenced the FAA article because it was the latest one dealing with the definition of Shall.

                  1. So you are using the living 21st century constitution version of shall rather than an originalist 1788 version of the term.

                    Like it or not, Article 1 specifically transferred those enumerated powers from states to the federal government. They did not philosophize about whether said powers were ‘optional’ while simultaneously prohibiting their exercise at the state level.

                    There have certainly been examples of a particular POLICY that Congress implemented that looks and smells like they abdicated an enumerated power. Federal Reserve for one. And in those cases, it is always instituional corruption. A way of eliminating the accountability of Congress in favor of something vague and not really accountable at all. Maybe that’s what’s really at the core of this ‘enumerated powers aren’t really enumerated at all but are merely ideas and suggestions’. If you can’t hold specific things accountable, then what CAN you hold accountable.

                    1. The 1788 version? Can you show me were in 1788 shall equals must? This same clause stated that Congress shall have the power to establish a Navy and Army, but Congress did neither for several years. In fact Congress opposed the founding of a Navy and Army. The very same Congress had a number of individuals who helped write and pass the Constitiuton. They obviously didn’t think shall equals must. Glad you know more than the actual framers.

                    2. The Founding Fathers would be baffled by a discussion of whether it was optional or not. They would be like, “Why would anyone even ask that question?”

                      They already had a postal system set up from the time of the Continental Congress, and we’re trying to make it official.

                      Whatever the merits one could argue of privatizing and getting rid of the USPS, right now is not the time. We need a functional Post Office for this upcoming election. It is reprehensible that Trump is complaining about mail-in ballots and not do doing everything he can right now to make sure they are equipped and funded for the election.

                    3. The US Army was created by the Congress of Confederation in 1784. As a replacement for the Continental Army. In 1788, it had one regiment guarding the frontier west of the Appalachians (the 1763 settlement line and the 1783 Treaty of Paris release of sovereignty) and a battery guarding the West Point arsenal. And was then reformed again in 1791 as the Legion of the United States.

                      And the Navy was only disbanded from 1785 (the sale of the Alliance because it couldn’t afford to be operated) to 1790 (the commissioning of cutters for the Revenue-Marine). Not because there was some philosophy of ‘optional’ but because ships cost lots of money and incurred debt which meant that sources of revenue and credit are actually precursors to constructing ships.

                      Likewise – if you want to understand why a post office system was deemed govtl maybe you should actually read a biography of Ben Franklin. Course you Mises/Austrian wieners don’t ever actually read hisotry for understanding but only for agitprop

              4. Someone is angry covid hasn’t killed everyone.

              5. SHALL have the power does not mean SHALL exercise said power.

                1. ^

                  “Shall”
                  “Shall not”
                  “And shall have the power to”

                  State different things.
                  The first two are commands, the latter is expository

            3. Take care clause would like to weigh in.

      2. Let’s use the one tool we have to get mail to every human in the country and then talk about how to improve it after the election.

        1. Or, try and get it right from the start??? And the USPS is definitely not the only tool we have got.

          1. You could hire FedEx to expand their routes to include literally every citizen, but would that be any cheaper?

            1. But more reliable and more secure, and better tracking.

              1. Assuming its business model could scale to include literally everyone, and it would accept being told what to do. Maybe it would be better and cheaper than the post office, but it would probably have to do without any profits.

                1. Considering they are a global company, and already deliver to just about everybody, and I also stated ballots should only be mailed to those who request one, scalability is a red herring on your part.

                  1. There are all these complaints about states implementing new mail-in programs right before a major election, and we should change the mail carrier that many states have been using successfully for years in the middle of this? Because we want MORE instability in this election?

                  2. But forcing them to go without a profit to perform a nationwide public service… that’s better than the post office somehow.

            2. I’ve had deliveries from Fedex, UPS, Airborne, and Domino’s Pizza. What I have not had a delivery from is the US Postal Service. They don’t deliver to my zip code.

              1. Interesting….I thought the Post Office was required to deliver to every address in America and every ZIP Code?

              2. We should have Domino’s handle the mail-in votes.

              3. The USPS can’t not deliver mail. That’s one of the reasons they are in a financial hole (the other being standard mismanagement). They are famous for delivering junk mail by plane or burro if need be, no matter what the cost.

                The key word is “Zip Code”. That’s your post office number. If you have one, you get delivery.

      3. The 19th century model didn’t deliver mail to houses until 1863 – and then only to cities. And even then mostly to branch offices where there were many more branches than at present.

        In general there is a direct conflict between post offices and mail delivery. The more you deliver to houses, the fewer post offices you have/need and once you start eliminating post offices, the more the ‘delivery monopoly’ gets entrenched.

        1. And? The post offices also weren’t government owned but leased via private businesses for the most part. The USPS still does this in a lot of supermarkets. What is your point?

    5. crony capitalism and a poll tax

      1. and voter suppression. i think FedEx requires a valid credit card.

        1. The government could send you a printed fed ex or UPS envelope prepaid. Just like we do in normal business. You just drop it off. Just floating the idea.

          Even in the worst days of the corona lockdown here Fed Ex and UPS functioned far better than USPS. When the post office around here was near shut down those places were fully functional. So we really don’t need USPS. Like the pony express it is no longer needed. Just another government boondoggle.

          Sell it.

    6. Hi everyone……..Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info on this page. … Click For Full Details.

  8. While she doesn’t support mask mandates (“unless we’re talking about a government building”) or even a forced vaccine in the event that one is developed

    Or even?

    “That just shows what libertarians have been saying for decades, which is just because the government doesn’t tell you to do it doesn’t mean it won’t get done,”

    Most *actual* libertarians with half a brain would recognize this for what it is; self-preservation. They aren’t enacting and enforcing the mask mandates because they chose to, they’re enacting them because it would be a shame if what happened to the local bar or that non-essential business across the street happened to them too.

  9. Gross. Putting aside the BLM organization — which is hideous, vile, anti-Semitic, & deeply Marxist — the ostensibly innocuous principle “black lives matter” hinges on a complete fucking canard: systemic/institutional racism.
    It’s pathetic that a self-identified Libertarian candidate espouses this horseshit. But it’s in keeping with Reason’s weirdly even-handed treatment of the two major political parties–one of which (blue) has become an absolute enemy of individual liberties & capitalist enterprise.

    1. which is hideous, vile, anti-Semitic, & deeply Marxist

      Go on…

      /Mizek

      1. You really need more? How’s “mildly objectionable”? Yeah- throw that on there. Happy Friday

      2. Explicitly anti-family?

    2. The systemic/institutional racism in the criminal justice system is well established. Saying otherwise is just denying facts.

      1. The systemic/institutional racism in the criminal justice system is well established. Saying otherwise is just denying facts.

        Yes, but why do those communities continue to hire racist cops in the first place? Racist cops who look exactly like their own community of brothers, fathers, sisters, wives, and neighbors?

      2. No, although Misek is a well known racist, and I am not defending him, institutional racism is not a well established fact. Nor is it well established that the judicial system is racist. Multiple researchers have come to different conclusions. In fact some have set out to prove systematic racism in the judicial system and ended up admitting the data doesn’t support this supposition. Declaring it an indisputable fact is denying realty and probably a product of your confirmation bias, where you ignore contradictory information.

      3. Also, any study that demonstrates systematic racism are correlative studies and correlation does not equal causation as any scientist will tell you. It can suggest causation, but in this case there are so many co-variables, and no control group, that proving causation is impossible.

      4. With respect, your saying so doesn’t make it so–notwithstanding the weird moment in which we live. Share a link supporting that assertion (or merely some facts on the subject).

      5. Why do you democrats that control entire cities and states, a dare so woke, continue to her racist people, ha racist policies, and pass racist laws? Why do you need republicans at the federal level to fix everything for you? You already have a chokehold on your state legislatures. So why can’t you ban chokeholds yourselves?

  10. How does she plan to get rid of the opportunistic people highjacking the moment? Especially when you see what’s happening in Portland which has a Minority population of about 6% and most of the protesters appear to be white college students bored and waiting for classes to start? I’ll vote for her because what other choice do we have — Trump or Biden? No thanks — but people have to call out the political BLM organization for what
    It is a Marxist group looking for a government in control of every so called progressive idea that
    Comes along from universal income to reparations.

    1. By engaging with the least fringe elements and working out points of agreement as best you can. You’d be surprised (or at least read beyond standard libertarian sites) that there are large swaths of blm who are not in fact closet Marxist, and are perturbed by the focus beyond police reform (I swear it is Occupy all over again), beyond the characterizations here.

      This has echos of the Ron Paul newsletter and everyone painting libertarians with the racist brush or the alt-right pipeline (the tacit approval of discrimination didn’t help either). While libertarians were quick to point out it was wholly unfair to conflate their sensibilities one-dimensionally with what was the face of libertarianism, here we are with the same being applied as long as it is for a Republican voter drive.

      1. BLM owns the movement.
        Until supporters clearly cleave themselves off from BLM, efforts will remain fundamentally subservient to marxist politics

  11. “I think we should support the protesters, but, at the same time, get rid of the opportunistic people hijacking the movement.”

    This happened months ago at this point. This is her Aleppo moment.

    1. I think Kanye’s campaign lasted longer than hers.

      1. Certainly more relevant. It’d be interesting to see in a vacuum with Kanye on the ballot in November, just how many votes he’d get. I’ll bet he’d crush Jo.

  12. Well, this is better than her original tweet and makes me less worried about voting for her (even though she won’t win). I still think she is downplaying the racism and violence we are seeing at a lot of these “protests”. And I think she is not realizing how the racism and violence is making it less likely that this time we will get any meaningful change, just like every time in the past. And her voting by mail is actually what I proposed last week, use FedEx and/or UPS because they lose stuff less often and have better tracking than USPS. I wonder if she supports mailing out unrequested ballots? I prefer a system were voters have to request ballots, but also support the state mailing out request forms to every registered voter.

  13. Given the story about BLM protestors below, I wonder how she feels about the people who showed up to David Lacey’s house. Should we support those protestors? They were completely “peaceful” after all.

  14. Protestors AKA thugs…

  15. Those who riot have no cover without “peaceful” protesters; they are bound to one another.

    1. You just described a one-way need.

  16. Sorry Jo and Zuri, You need to be supporting the people hijacking the movement. The movement is based on misrepresentations of reality founded by Marxists and steeped in marxist post-modernist gibberish for all of their goals.

    The people hijacking the movement are the ones protesting for the unloaded phrase “Black Lives Matter” that don’t see racism in alternate phrasings like “All Lives Matter”. The hijackers are the peaceful protesters while the movement are the ones demanding the destruction of western civilization and all it’s works in order to undo “White Supremacy” of democracy, capitalism, science and everything else that makes up the modern world.

    1. This exactly. Although I think it’s a mistake to believe the movement can be hijacked, any more than the KKK could be hijacked to crusade against racism. The civilization destroying impulse is so central to it, better to just spread the word about its true nature and let reasonable people reject it entirely.

  17. I have a few questions about Black Lives Matters. The first question is just where are the most black lives killed by police. Answer: If one will look at this one will soon find out that the most black lives are killed by police in state and cities that are predominantly black and in many cases black people are also the majority of the political leadership. I first pay attention first back during the Baltimore riots over the death of Freddy Gray in 2015. This death happened after Obama (the first black man was president of the US) had been in office for six of his 8 years. In addition Baltimore had been under black political control for the last 40 to 50 years. It has been the same thing in most of these cases of death of black men at the hands of police. This is also the case in the death of one of the latest black men to die at the hands of police in Atlanta also. Atlanta has been under primarily under black political control since Andrew Young was elected mayor of Atlanta.
    The next question is: Is it only the lives of black men killed by police the only Black Lives that Matter? Does not the black lives killed by other black people MATTER just as much as the lives of black men killed by police. I would think that these lives killed by other black people would matter more because many of these black lives are children that are being killed by these black men. But these black lives have not had any BLACK LIVES MATTER group or as far as it goes any group to raise a pep about these live except the families of the children that were killed by other black lives. This leads me to conclude that these BLACK LIVES that are NOT killed by police DOES NOT MATTER or there would be a loud out cry to do something about them!
    The end of my rant!

    1. Want an even better one look at the infant mortality rates. Us as a whole is 6 in 1000, where as black people in Chicago (Chicago was the only city in the study) is 12 in 1000.

      1. Those infants lack the can-do spirit that comes naturally to white infants.

        1. No one said that, or even implied it. Complete straw man.

          1. a good zinger though

        2. I’m sure you think that Tony. Is this why you and your friends love aborting black babies so much?

      2. Including abortions?

  18. I agree with everything she said.

    Go Jo!

  19. She is far from perfect. But I just can’t see supporting Trump, even symbolically (I live in Oregon, which is going to go to a Dem no matter how I vote), so, while I may write-in myself, unless she blows it entirely, I will probably vote a straight-libertarian ticket.

    1. Please write in Willie Nelson. At least he has the weed part under control.

  20. Many conservatives insist Black Lives Matter is a Marxist, anti-police, radical organization that wants to tear down America. Meanwhile, most liberals simply view Black Lives Matter as a heroic movement and powerful slogan signaling support for racial justice and opposition to police brutality.

    Both are right. There is Black Lives Matter™️, and there is “black lives matter.”

    I’ve been meaning to point this out for some time. In some media articles and references, Black Lives Matter is capitalized. When you capitalize it, I’m going to hold your feed to the fire and presume you’re talking about the organization. A lot of media articles capitalize it. As long as they keep doing that, I’m going to presume you’re talking about the organization.

    1. I’m also presuming that the proceeds from paraphernalia (tee shirts, hats etc.) go to the organization. Possibly not, but I’m guessing most does. Also, when the media talks about BLM “Members” and “leaders” I also assume they are in some way, organizationally or officially associated and sanctioned by the leadership of the org.

      1. at least antifa is imaginary

      2. Thank you for saying this.

        There has been a lot of loose usage of “Black Lives Matter” to label people where no affiliation is in evidence.

      3. Not true at all. I do not support BLM the org, but I do make $5 profit every t shirt I sell at my online store 🙂
        I sell Trump T shirts too 🙂

  21. I think we should support the protesters, but, at the same time, get rid of the opportunistic people hijacking the movement.

    Yeah, see, the looters, vandals, arsonists, and killers aren’t trying to hijack anything; BLM “protests” have been their vehicle from day one. Pretending otherwise is blatant disingenuity; everyone with even a room-temperature IQ knew in advance that BLM “protests” in 2020 would just be cover for all the same criminal behavior as the BLM “protests” in 2015.

    The only case here of “opportunistic people hijacking the movement” are people like you, Jo, politicians trying to use an excuse for violent crime as a reason to advance your own political agenda. Which, ultimately, isn’t so much evil as pathetic.

    I voted Libertarian in 2012 and 2016. But I sure as hell won’t vote for you.

    1. That the protest organizers knew violence would accompany their protests does not prove everyone involved supports both. There are many people of good will involved and the best approach politically is to pressure the violent but not the protesters. This forces people to reveal whether they support only protesters or both.

      We do this by recognizing the distinction while also pointing out that left supports the violence by responding to our criticisms of violence with the pretense it is criticism of protesters. This of course is only true if all protesters are violent, and publicizing this belief will cause the non-violent to repudiate the left.

      1. That the protest organizers knew violence would accompany their protests does not prove everyone involved supports both.

        Right. Some of the people involved, rather than supporting violence, are just so stupid they didn’t understand their actions were supporting arson, looting, and murder. That’s the distinction to recognize, between the violent and the stupid.

        But in that case, Jorgensen’s statement translates as “I think we should support well-meaning idiots.” Which makes her, at best, a member of the well-meaning idiots, and no, I’m not going to support her idiocy at the polls.

        1. Some of these people aren’t even well-meaning idiots. They’re rioters using the disguise of peaceful protestors with the explicit goal of acting as sympathetic human shields to get in the way of police trying to stop the riots. Like the yellow-clad “moms” in Portland.

      2. We’ve had the last 3 years of the left in all it’s gradations insisting that Charleston was ONLY about white supremacists and the president’s support of white supremacy, completely ignoring the actual event and actions of third parties (white supremacists, Antifa and the local government) that made it what it was. Now we’re supposed to ignore their willing fraternization and outright support of openly marxist groups attempting to destoy not just the US but all of western civilization? I’ll give them the same charity they provided for “some good people on both sides”.

        1. Complain about how the Left behaves.

          Try to hold one’s own side to a higher standard? Nope, lower one’s standards.

          This is precisely the kind of thinking that is causing this country to spiral down into a cesspool.

          1. b0Th sIDeS!!

            1. It’s the last refuge of leftists who know they’re in the wrong

      3. So much nuance. Now do Charlottesville.

    2. This is an important point. People were predicting racial unrest for this year long before this happened.

      1619 was the NYT push to “get Trump” by means other than their failed Russia story – their description, not mine. They explicitly intended to foment racial unrest with the purpose of electing democrats. And they were not alone. There was a concerted effort across multiple fronts – most media outlets, many “grass roots” organizations, etc. It did not work to any significant degree. Trump was actually making inroads in the minority vote.

      Then covid happened. And suddenly there were a lot of frustrated people locked in their homes.

      And then Floyd happened.

      And the “grass roots organizers” were ready.

      When you see “racial unrest” focused in Portland and Seattle where there is no substantial black population, you can understand that there is no “racial unrest” component to this.

  22. “Support BLM…some of the Marxists might mean well.”

    That might as well be Jo Jorgensen’s campaign slogan. Thanks, but I don’t back any politician who sides with violent communist insurgencies…ever.

    1. Thank you for this succinct characterization.

      1. It was concise and accurate

    2. Many do mean well. You can oppose them more effectively if you acknowledge that.

      1. Actually, the history of communist insurgencies shows us that once the leftists go to violence on a national scale like this, the only way they’re generally stopped is by jailing and/or killing them. Otherwise they fester and metastasize.

        When they’re burning down police stations, they’re no longer negotiating, they’re at war and their goal is the collapse of the country’s governance. If Jo Jorgensen can’t see that, she’s too fucking stupid to run for dogcatcher, much less President of the United States.

  23. The smart position is to say we’ve made opposition to police brutality and militarism a core issue for 50 years – so her response is pretty good. The next step though is to attack the left. The left has been in complete control of the cities where these events occur. But their focus for 50 years has been race preferences in hiring and black political control via police chiefs, DAs, and mayors. So they wanted a bigger piece of the government salary pie and political prestige instead of addressing police brutality. This consistent with campus protests where every outrage generates demands for black faculty positions. With the left it’s always about the money.

    It’s been amusing watching some small percentage BLM activists finally focus on solutions rather than their traditional demands for more pie. What did they come up with? Exactly what libertarians have been pushing for 50 years. Late to the party as always which is why it’s so insulting these Johnny-come-latelys question other people’s committment.

  24. This is fairly reasonable, but the death virus pandemic thing immediately brings up some problems. People taking hygiene measures seriously in a society with no government mandates depends on a couple things, given the nature of how the disease spreads: people need to be sufficiently educated about the risks and the responsibilities. Do we think Americans have this capacity without government guidance, even on a good day?

    Trump of course takes it away from magical thinking about a universally educated populace doing the right thing and takes it to a level of stark absurdity. He’s actively trying to confuse people about the risks and responsibilities. He’s making people dumber for political reasons that would escape understanding if we didn’t already know he was a world-class idiot who is just as bad at politics as he is at everything else.

    Is that a government-is-inherently-bad problem? Isn’t it also problem for people who promise that collective unrestrained action will magically solve a pandemic, with its various implied restrictions? We can’t even get to a place where people are sufficiently educated. It’s not just the president doing that, it’s private actors working on his behalf.

    It’s hard to escape the reality that, for some social purposes, such as people not dying by the millions, you just have to drag stupid people along against their will. It goes without saying that lame attempts to rewrite the facts of the matter so that you can remain grasping at ideology is not convincing. If this virus doesn’t require masks and stay-home orders, imagine one that did.

    1. people need to be sufficiently educated about the risks and the responsibilities. Do we think Americans have this capacity without government guidance, even on a good day?

      Which government guidance? No, seriously… the one where our top pandemic advisor admits he lied about masks? The WHO who said this wasn’t a problem, then said it was a huge problem?

      Science isn’t settled. Science is a process that is in constant contention, so when you say the government must guide us, which science and scientists will they use, and what happens when those scientists end up being wrong?

      As we’ve seen, the government has been utterly incapable of adjusting its own policies in real time. If there’s any set of policies that need real-time adjustment, it’s a fucking global pandemic.

      Western governments have lost their legitimacy. They don’t know HOW to govern anymore, all they know how to do is put a boot on your neck. It’s just the boot changes every election cycle.

      1. This is precisely what I’m talking about. You are right that the science isn’t settled. They have made mistakes, as is natural during the emergence of a novel disease. With or without government, this only works if people are as informed as possible. Now the problem is not just regular uncertainties and private-sector misinformation, it’s a deliberate confusing of the issues by the president. You’re one of his victims. He has permitted you to question even the stuff that’s agreed upon. Same with climate change and presumably any other scientific matter you want to muck up for political purposes. So i would argue that government is necessary but also in this case, government is part of the problem. That’s why you have to vote for good people and not the ignorant and mentally ill. Can’t get around that.

        1. The problem is that you’ve just admitted that the stuff that’s “agreed upon” changes all the time because of mistakes that the experts have made.

          You can’t have a consensus when the people who are supposed to know what they’re talking about, and just love shoving that supposition in the face of the ignorant proles they’re lecturing, are constantly changing the tune that they want people to dance to.

          1. You can make up a story about how masks are actually bad for you, but if masks are what the doctors are advising, you don’t have a good reason to go against the grain, and certainly not because some blogger has a conspiracy theory. The precautionary principle applies as well as the principle that you don’t get to make up your own truth in the absence of scientific truth. Do what the doctors say is how we live life every day. When they change their minds, so do we. What alternative is there? I don’t want to go to medical school.

            1. Pure appeal to authority. Some doctors recommend them, some don’t.

        2. Define good people? This is an ambiguous statement. Also, a large percentage of people suffer some form of mental illness. Which particular mental illness bars you from office? Mild depression? Anxiety? PTSD? Can you be more specific? Or are you demonizing everyone who deals with mental health issues?

          1. Good people are those with a measurable degree of empathy and concern for the well-being of others. So, not Trump.

            I should have said “the severely mentally ill.” It’s the presidency. Not everyone gets a shot, try as we might to give it to the nearest carnival clowns we can find (as long as they’re white men).

            1. Again how do you test for empathy? What degree of empathy? And what is wrong with white men? Also, was his predecessor a white person? You state the president is severely mentally ill, do you have proof? His medical records for instance? Or is it your judgement?
              I have a feeling your definition would eliminate anyone on the right or anyone you even remotely disagree.

              1. Sometime they make it easy. Not easy enough apparently.

                I hope you’re happy with what you’ve done to this country.

                “He’ll shake up the system!”

                Yep.

        3. Sure they made mistakes, but they outright lied to us too.

          1. Surgeon General Jerome Adams urged people against buying and wearing masks to protect themselves from the new coronavirus.

            “You can increase your risk of getting it by wearing a mask if you are not a health care provider,” Adams said. “Folks who don’t know how to wear them properly tend to touch their faces a lot and actually can increase the spread of coronavirus,” he added.

            Adams’ comments Monday reiterate his blaring tweet from the weekend, urging people to “STOP BUYING MASKS.” He said that they were “NOT effective” to the general public and noted that the increased demand in masks puts medical professionals at risk.

            Fauci made similar comments. Later, they reversed course not on science…but by admitting that they lied to protect PPE supplies “I don’t regret anything I said then because in the context of the time in which I said it, it was correct. We were told in our task force meetings that we have a serious problem with the lack of PPEs and masks for the health providers who are putting themselves in harm’s way every day to take care of sick people,”

            1. Everyone is aware that they fumbled the mask thing in the beginning. Even if they were outright lying, it was to triage the situation and get masks to where they were needed most.

              Whatever the case, it doesn’t give you permission to make up an alternative set of facts that happens to satisfy your personal comfort and political leanings.

              1. The charge of alternative facts is not an argument in good faith, it is used to attack your opponent and discredit whatever they say no matter the validity of their argument. Not sure you are showing any measurable amount of empathy by using this argument.

                1. The only principle I’m articulating is that someone else’s wrongness or deceit doesn’t make your own arguments any more true.

                  1. Advise you should take. The fact is some studies suggests masks are helpful, but they are small. There are also studies that they are worthless. And there actually are people who suffer medical complications because of masks. Masks can also actually increase the chances of developing fungal pneumonia, which is very difficult to treat (cloth masks raise this risk significantly).

                    1. I’ll just leave this here. If a bunch of top-down countries are saying “enough is enough,” then…enough is enough.

                      https://fee.org/articles/europes-top-health-officials-say-masks-arent-helpful-in-beating-covid-19/

                    2. What the hell is fee.org? You scoured the internet until you found an opinion piece you liked, right?

                      There is no goddamn hope.

      2. They don’t know HOW to govern anymore, all they know how to do is put a boot on your neck.

        Sort of like cameras being everywhere so now you see how the cops really are, this pandemic is exposing government big time. It’s always been this way, but now it’s all open and raw for everyone to see.

    2. Do we think Americans have this capacity without government guidance, even on a good day?

      The government “guidance” has done wonders so far.

      1. Is he implying that people are to stupid for their own good and therefore the government must make these decisions for us? And don’t the government officials come from the populace as a whole, which he just stated is to stupid to make the right decisions? Doesn’t that imply, logically, that government officials are also to stupid to make decisions?

    3. “If this virus doesn’t require masks and stay-home orders, imagine one that did.”

      No such thing. No virus would ever be sufficient to make that a defensible policy.

    4. “It’s hard to escape the reality that, for some social purposes, such as people not dying by the millions, you just have to drag stupid people along against their will.”

      So basically this…….

      “No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?”

      Does that sum it up Tony?

      Also, no one is ‘dying by the millions’.

  25. All lives matter.

    Blacks aren’t involved with police any more than their criminal behaviour would predict.

    When they disobey police they escalate every situation.

    1. Ooh, now do Jooooossss! Explain why you need to exterminate them.

      1. You’re a retard getting all scaredy.

    2. So you support the death penalty for passing a counterfeit $20 bill?

      Or for selling cigarettes on the street without a license?

      I think we can separate a reasonable demand for police to stop killing unarmed, fully-restrained suspects from the Marxist, totalitarian agenda of the mostly-white progressives who are attaching their ideology to the protests.

  26. So I do not have even a decent bailout candidate from the Libertarians.

  27. I like Jo Jorgensen, but I think this year isn’t her year.

    1. It is never our year.

      To me she has character, she has principles. To run as a libertarian you need courage. Those are what leaders are made of, or should be.

      It is an uphill battle and she will lose it.

      So one more person from nowhere will give her a vote. That much I can do.

      1. To me she has character, she has principles

        She has principles alright, they just don’t seem to be libertarian principles.

        1. She’s a pretty standard libertarian on all the basic issues from what I’ve seen, but I haven’t looked all that closely.

          1. Supporting Marxists etc

            1. Right, she’s practically wearing a Mao cap. Rolling my eyes so hard I have a headache.

          2. She’s a pretty standard libertarian on all the basic issues from what I’ve seen

            If you go issue-by-issue, libertarianism overlaps a lot with other political movements, including socialism, progressivism, and conservatism. So, depending on your choice of “basic issues”, that may well be true. But just favoring a lot of libertarian policy positions doesn’t make you a libertarian.

        2. She has principles alright.

          And if you don’t like those she has others.

    2. I would agree. The 2020 election is a referendum on Trump and Trumpism. She might have better luck in 2024.

    3. You said correctly

  28. We should support the cause of equal justice and a reduction of police brutality for all, but it’s hard to support the mostly peaceful protestors now, when they know the protests are being “hijacked” every day by protestors who aren’t quite as peaceful.

    1. BLM was organized by Marxists with Marxist objectives. A libertarian should not support Marxist organizations or Marxist objectives regardless of whether they are pursued by peaceful or violent means.

  29. Libertarians are much more hostile to “nationalist conservatives” or “immigration hawks” who agree 80-90% with their economic agenda than they are to a radical left wing organization who would dismantle a libertarian state if one existed. It’s just one of the reasons why they don’t win.

    As black conservatives have pointed out, there are any number of white people who were killed by cops while sleeping on their beds, being tazed, being knelt on, etc. Police brutality is an urgent issue with race playing some factor. But the odds of a POC getting killed by cop unjuslty is no higher than them getting killed by a black urban youth.

    ALL of the world’s most brutal dictators and communist came into power riding a revolution that was based on real grievances. Would libertarians have supported the French revolution? Because Robiespierre was an abolitionist? LOOK at the kind of world BLM prefers, LOOK at how they would enforce racial egalitarianism. What FUCKING business does a libertarian have in meeting with these people? Do you see BLM conndeming BLM (TM)’s antisemitism and violent rhetoric?

    1. Well said.

    2. Idi Main’s coup was greeted by cheering in the streets. Upon seizing power, he freed political prisoners, declared his intent to proceed quickly to a democratic election, as soon as possible.

      We know how that turned out.

      Although one has to admire his self-proclaimed title: “His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, CBE, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular”

      1. Stupid autocorrect. Idi Amin.

    3. Libertarians are much more hostile to “nationalist conservatives” or “immigration hawks” who agree 80-90% with their economic agenda than they are to a radical left wing organization who would dismantle a libertarian state if one existed.

      Maybe on this site since most of the people libertarians have to argue with here are conservative Republicans. But, surely you’ve seen a few socialist types comment here and receive “hostility.” Anyway, they’re still probably going to vote for your guy, but maybe they will. Why worry about it?

    4. As a Libertarian, I’m finding myself very strongly in agreement with a lot of this, especially of late.

  30. Imagine a “libertarian” presidential candidate allying herself with a black nationalist movement that wants to take out the police, at a time when most black people want MORE police.

    Some of their communities may well become killing fields. Shootings are already going up in some big cities. Because the media basically says “we don’t care about black toddlers being shot to death, stop saying all lives matter” many blacks will lose their lives and wealth without anyone knowing about it.

    They’re stupid. Libertarians are supposed to be smarter. But they’re not. Apparently, they’re not. Tell something, I have to know – how does a modern society function without police? They can’t? Oh but you just want reforms, you say? End QI, and then let then private cops take over? But private cops won’t get QI either? Then what security company would form contracts with any cities?

    The cop ridden cities are all ran by democrats, who keeps alive a pseudo socialist state in their bubble. The libertarians have done ZERO to take down the people who are most responsible for poverty, crime, and lawlessness in their country. The FBI lied and entrapped Trump and or his associates, and the cop hating Reason all of a sudden remained silent. How strange!

    1. fewer laws + fewer police = happier citizens

      1. With you on the first part. Not sure about the second part. Maybe just changing how we police, and less laws is more than adequate. There is a need for police, and if we go back to walking the beat (which Guilianni did in NYC) we see a reduction in crime, and more community cooperation. The police aren’t the problem, it is how we use them, and how many stupid laws we insist on them enforcing.

        1. In observing directly the differences in policing between a developing country and a first world country is that the Rich are able to afford sufficient police to aggressively pursue each violation while the poor, having the same number and types of laws, can not afford nearly enough to address even serious property crimes.

          As a result the people may be happily and openly smoking indoors or selling beer after 11PM but the lack of enforcement resources to address that heinousness leads to a happier citizenry.

          They’d be even better off if they eliminated petty restrictions of freedoms as above just to acknowledge who is the actual sovereign and who are the servants.

          1. Again, I don’t think I disagree with anything of this, but also don’t see how any of this logically calls for less police, just different policing and less laws.

      2. “fewer laws + fewer police = happier citizens”

        Which is, notably, what NO protest(er)s call for.
        They don’t want happier citizens, otherwise they might try not being 100% negative or searching for anything that can possibly be turned into a grievance.
        They talk about defunding police, sure, but replacing those state agents with different agents of the state.
        And the last thing they’d ever demand is fewer laws. If anything, they demand more laws

    2. 70 days in, and the Mostly Peaceful Protestors have almost killed as many unarmed black people as all the cops do in a year

  31. Perhaps my favorite part of the culture war is wiping my shoes on the tongues of right-wing bigots.

    1. You mean instead of licking your shoes clean yourself, like you’re doing now?

    2. You aren’t going to do shit Arty. You’re just another progtard pussy hiding behind a mob or some cop. Without that, wouldn’t dare Say shit even if you had a mouthful.

  32. I was cautiously unhappy with her previous voicing of support of BLM but having now seen her longer form statements on the matter I agree wholeheartedly. BLM is absolutely a racist pile of shit from top to bottom but there’s two things in play here:
    1. On the issue of overpolicing they are, in fact, correct. The fact that they are racist shitbags who want to destroy the system rather than fix it doesn’t nullify the fact that there is something desperately wrong with policing in America today, and shouting your opposition to that just so you can stand on the other side of the issue from asshats just furthers the culture war without focusing on actually fixing the problem.
    2. You don’t win people over by loudly and proudly hating on them. If you engage with the BLM people, or antifa, or even the KKK, you might just convince some of them that they are standing in the wrong camp. Ostracizing extremists just forces them into an extremist echo chamber where they can’t hear reason. You have to reach out.

    1. Any radicalism in BLM or the presence of anti-fascists is justified to the extent that there actually are fascists out there who oppose even their mainstream goals of equal civil rights. You would like to trick them into unilaterally disarming so that the bad radicals win without a fight.

      1. Yes, there are fascists out there, Antifa seems to be filled with them.

      2. Convenient self justifying argument. The same could be said about citizen militias. The radicalism of citizen militias is the result of the fact that there are actual socialist, Communist and totalitarians that want to take away individual rights and property…

        1. But that’s not true. They’re paranoid.

          On the other hand I watched Nazis march in play daylight on TV in solidarity with the most powerful politician in the country.

          That is different from the same hysterical fascist grievances they’ve had since it began in Germany.

          1. It is completely true, I have heard multiple leftist state that have stated that they want to end all private property, arrest anyone on the right, destroy all religion etc. It appears you refuse to see the truth.

            1. Of course he does. Even though Tony supports those ideas and the people trying to make them happen.

    2. On the issue of overpolicing they are, in fact, correct.

      Really? How is that so clear? The vast majority of Americans are happy with the current level of policing or want more; that’s true even within each racial category progressives divide us into.

      Furthermore, in what way is less policing a libertarian position? Libertarians want to privatize police; privatizing police doesn’t necessarily mean less policing, it just means different policing.

      1. I think I tend towards less laws (and especially victimless crimes and morality laws), not necessarily less cops. I also lean towards de-escalation and community policing, returning more cops to walking a beat to build relationships in the community. This actually might require more cops. But we change the focus of policing by ending all the stupid social “wars on…”.

        1. Having government stick its nose into community issues and human relationships is certainly not a libertarian position. And if we address drug addiction that way, it makes the problem likely even worse than the war on drugs.

          The libertarian position is that drug use should be legal, but that people can be discriminated and ostracized over it, that government isn’t going to help them with food, housing, or medical treatment (though private charity may).

          1. Where laws and police come in, from a familial PoV, is the lack of resources or structure to forcibly deal with a family member who is an addict.

            Send the addict into the world, at some point they end up dead or in jail for theft or assault/murder – not victimless crimes – in attempts to score their next high.

            Family that doesn’t want that can not forcibly put their family members into rehab without a court order… only the government can force them and that is frequently only after they’ve been arrested.

            Now, if we added something to family court to adjudicate committing family members to asylums and rehab where the individual in question has right to guardian ad lidem and/or advocate for their interests against their family’s interests, there may be less desire for the war on drugs.

  33. If you sup with the Devil you’d best have a long spoon. I don’t think she’s got a long enough one to sup with BLM.

    1. Jo doesn’t have a spoon at all.

  34. The postal system is undeniably socialist and undeniably American. Put that in your historical revisionist bong and smoke it.

    1. The US was founded at a time when we didn’t yet have the experience and evidence of how truly evil socialism actually is, and how poorly government-run institutions function.

      The US has made many mistakes throughout its history: slavery, eugenics, the Fed, publicly owned corporations, government interference in marriage, Keynesian policies, etc. Those things turned out to be failures and we should abandon them. It’s no coincidence that most of those are socialist and/or progressive ideas.

      1. I admire your empirical attitude. Unrestrained capitalism should be subjected to the same tests.

        Oh look, we have results! The post office has delivered mail for centuries with very little incident and hardly any gulags. Unrestrained capitalism has put millions of humans into needless misery.

        Looks like we ought to fight any attempt to turn that massive failure into an ideology that people resist subjecting to empirical tests.

        1. The post office didn’t even exist as we know it until the early 20th century. In the 18th and 19th century, postal service was conducted via private contractors.

        2. Unrestrained capitalism has put millions of humans into needless misery.

          Free (“unrestrained”) private enterprise (“capitalism”) has never put any human into misery. Not once.

          I challenge you to give a single example in which free private enterprise has put anyone into misery.

          1. Okay this is the behavior of someone who treats an economic system as a religion. If your set of economics policies by definition can do no wrong, then we aren’t even talking about anything.

            1. No one ever said that. The problem is that your socialist/communist philosophy is inherently evil. Additionally, the evil scales with the amount of socialism/communism introduced.

              1. Is it socialism or communism? Or maybe neither?

                Can an economic theory even be evil by itself, or maybe is it the killing that’s evil? All killers grow up on one economic system or another. Why blame that? Seems silly.

                1. Socialism and communism inevitably lead to poverty and mass killings in human societies. That’s both an empirical fact and we understand the reasons for it.

                  Free markets and voluntary transactions never have these outcomes.

                  1. “Inevitable” is a strong word to apply to the evolution of entirely artificial systems. And “capitalism can do no wrong” is plain willful blindness.

                    I don’t think communism is a good system, and you’re right that there’s plenty of evidence of its flaws, which include its apparent inability to be paired with democracy.

                    But capitalism can come in totalitarian flavors too. Sometimes the USA, capitalism headquarters, has imposed its economic theories on unwilling populaces, so it can be a tool of empire too.

                    Neither system works very well in the hands of ideologues.

                    The problem, really, is a dogmatic attachment to economic principles that are bound to be flawed and provisional since they are human inventions that attempt to organize complex realities.

                    The best we can do is use the empirical approach. What are the best countries? Which have the best social metrics? Turns out it’s democracies with capitalism and a strong public sector. What’s so bad about that?

                    1. And “capitalism can do no wrong” is plain willful blindness.

                      Well, lucky then that I didn’t say such a thing. You claimed that Unrestrained capitalism has put millions of humans into needless misery. I know of no example where “unrestrained capitalism” has put anybody into misery, let alone millions, and you have yet to come up with an example.

                      The problem, really, is a dogmatic attachment to economic principles that are bound to be flawed and provisional since they are human inventions that attempt to organize complex realities.

                      I agree completely with that statement. And the only economic system that does not “attempt to organize complex realities” is free markets.

                      The best we can do is use the empirical approach. What are the best countries? Which have the best social metrics? Turns out it’s democracies with capitalism and a strong public sector. What’s so bad about that?

                      You’re just parroting the self-congratulatory propaganda of progressive Western governments, who want people to believe that their form of government made people rich. That idea is bullshit. All those “democracies with capitalism and a strong public sector” became rich under small, laissez-faire governments (often not even democracies). It is the progressive welfare state that is now destroying this wealth. Those are the empirical facts.

            2. See? Ask for an example and the socialist orator belches forth a sermon on how there are no definitions.

    2. The postal system during the time of the countries founding was not a government ran program. The individual post masters generals to contract with locals to carry the mail and even deliver it. These people were not government employees but were contractors. The government paid them, while the people paid the government in the form of stamps. It was meant to be self funding. Not sure how you classify this as Socialism. It is the Government contracting for services, paid for by a user fee by the people who used the services.

    3. And it sucks.

  35. Start making cash online work easily from home.i have received a paycheck of $24K in this month by working online from home.i am a student and i just doing this job in my spare HERE? Click For Full Details.
     

  36. “We need change, and I’m glad [the protests] are getting the attention,” Jorgensen tells me on the bus after the speech.

    “I’m glad the shock troops were able to knock down the walls. We’d like to discuss with them how we can best rule now”, JoJo said.

  37. This is an own goal.

  38. Yeah, nothing says “Libertarian Party” than supporting a racist and Marxist organization that has the stated goal of radically changing society and destroying the traditional family structure.

    1. The irony is that few things have been more malignant towards blacks than the destruction of the nuclear family in the black community.

      1. It would be ironic if it weren’t a deliberate strategy to gain power, clearly spelled out in Marxist writings.

  39. Is this the libertarian moment?

    Jorgensen is a useful idiot. Absolutely ridiculous to support a violent Marxist dipshit organization like BLM.

    No wonder libertarians aren’t taken seriously.

    Last time out it had the poser Weld and now this.

    As for the masks. Let’s put it this way. I wouldn’t want to be anywhere near people who wear them during the zombie apocalypse.

    1. But you do not get a vote here do you?

  40. Hi everyone……..Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info on this page. … Click For Full Detail.

  41. Don’t just blindly accept that BLM is a Marxist organization…their website uses “comrade” and parts of their listed beliefs appear to be cribbed from the Communist Manifest and Fidel Castro was a hero of theirs.

    Consider the open letter on the occasion of the death of Cuba’s long-term Communist dictator, Fidel Castro, if you wonder what BLM would like to see happen, read along as they celebrate the life of Fidel Castro: “Revolution transcends borders; the freedom of oppressed people and people of color is all bound up together wherever we are. In Cuba, South Africa, Palestine, Angola, Tanzania, Mozambique, Grenada, Venezuela, Haiti, African America,”

    What they want for America is what they saw in Cuba, Palestine, Haiti, Venezuala! I’m stunned frankly that Zimbabwe was not included in this list. Remember in Zimbabwe white farmers were murdered by the hundreds and their farms were confiscated and doled out to “the people”. These actions predicated a famine in Zimbambwe, a nation that had been one of the leading exporters of food in Africa. Seems that none of “the people” knew how to or cared about farming, so no food was grown. This was, of course, the fault of racist colonizers, somehow even though they had all fled the country or been murdered.

    ———————————–

    We are feeling many things as we awaken to a world without Fidel Castro. There is an overwhelming sense of loss, complicated by fear and anxiety. Although no leader is without their flaws, we must push back against the rhetoric of the right and come to the defense of El Comandante. And there are lessons that we must revisit and heed as we pick up the mantle in changing our world, as we aspire to build a world rooted in a vision of freedom and the peace that only comes with justice. It is the lessons that we take from Fidel.

    From Fidel, we know that revolution is sparked by an idea, by radical imaginings, which sometimes take root first among just a few dozen people coming together in the mountains. It can be a tattered group of meager resources, like in Sierra Maestro in 1956 or St. Elmo Village in 2013.

    Revolution is continuous and is won first in the hearts and minds of the people and is continually shaped and reshaped by the collective. No single revolutionary ever wins or even begins the revolution. The revolution begins only when the whole is fully bought in and committed to it. And it is never over.

    Revolution transcends borders; the freedom of oppressed people and people of color is all bound up together wherever we are. In Cuba, South Africa, Palestine, Angola, Tanzania, Mozambique, Grenada, Venezuela, Haiti, African America, and North Dakota. We must not only root for each other but invest in each other’s struggles, lending our voices, bodies, and resources to liberation efforts which may seem distant from the immediacy of our daily existence.

    Revolution is rooted in the recognition that there are certain fundamentals to which every being has a right, just by virtue of one’s birth: healthy food, clean water, decent housing, safe communities, quality healthcare, mental health services, free and quality education, community spaces, art, democratic engagement, regular vacations, sports, and places for spiritual expression are not questions of resources, but questions of political will and they are requirements of any humane society.

    Revolution requires that the determination to create and preserve these things for our people takes precedent over individual drives for power, recognition, and enrichment.

    A final lesson is that to be a revolutionary, you must strive to live in integrity. As a Black network committed to transformation, we are particularly grateful to Fidel for holding Mama Assata Shakur, who continues to inspire us. We are thankful that he provided a home for Brother Michael Finney Ralph Goodwin, and Charles Hill, asylum to Brother Huey P. Newton, and sanctuary for so many other Black revolutionaries who were being persecuted by the American government during the Black Power era. We are indebted to Fidel for sending resources to Haiti following the 2010 earthquake and attempting to support Black people in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina when our government left us to die on rooftops and in floodwaters. We are thankful that he provided a space where the traditional spiritual work of African people could flourish, regardless of his belief system.

    With Fidel’s passing there is one more lesson that stands paramount: when we are rooted in collective vision when we bind ourselves together around quests for infinite freedom of the body and the soul, we will be victorious. As Fidel ascends to the realm of the ancestors, we summon his guidance, strength, and power as we recommit ourselves to the struggle for universal freedom. Fidel Vive!

  42. After having voted pretty much straight Liberterian for 30 years or so. I voted for Reagan on my first ballot, then for the Libertarian every time until this last time.

    The reasons for my departure were two-fold.

    First, in my home state at the time, the Trump/Clinton divide was very narrow, and the thought that my L vote might contribute to a Clinton victory there was not something I could stomach.

    The moral pain of making that decision was ameliorated by about 99.7% when the Libertarian Party nominated Gary “Look, 73 percent of what Bernie says I agree with.” Johnson and Bill “Gun-Grabber” Weld.

    Ms Jorgensen’s, the Libertarian Party’s, and Reason’s apparent affiliation with the national Black Lives Matter organization will probably make it easy to skip the Party nominee again this year.

  43. BLM: “We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another”

    Communist Manifesto: On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

    The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

    Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

    But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

    And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

    The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting

    1. The sick thing is when you peel away the layers, you conservatives are all the same. All you want is the family structure you grew up with and can understand without any mental effort. Mom, dad, dog, 2 kids, yard. (Never mind that this in no ways resembles a historical of “natural” human family structure.) Dig deep enough and it’s all about controlling women so you don’t have to work to attract and keep them. Everything else is window dressing.

      1. Bigotry is the result of making gross generalizations about those who are different from you. It then progresses into believing that those generalizations are a defect and therefore those who are different are therefore subhuman. You just showed everyone one of these steps in your post. It completely dehumanizes anyone on the right, and assigns them evil motives. Good job demonstrating your bigotry.

        1. The same way I treat Nazis. At some point you hold people accountable for the things they choose to believe.

          1. Again are you saying anyone to your right is a Nazi? Or just evil because they disagree with you? Less human? Do you think they should be punished and or destroyed as a result? Or just not allowed to have any power or freedom? Sounds fairly fascist to me.

            1. What’s the point of a marketplace of ideas if bad ideas don’t ever die?

          2. The same way I treat Nazis. At some point you hold people accountable for the things they choose to believe.

            As we are doing with you, Tony: you’re somewhere in the Nazi/socialist territory.

      2. Dig deep enough and it’s all about controlling women so you don’t have to work to attract and keep them.

        What a lunatic.

      3. Funny, I’ll let you tell my wife of 30+ years that I’ve ever controlled her.

        1. That makes it all the more psychotic.

          1. Tony you are talking about something you do not understand. Let it go.

      4. All you want is the family structure you grew up with and can understand without any mental effort.

        Yes, that’s all we want for ourselves and our children. We don’t really care what you want for yourself or your children. But we will not let you tell us how to live our lives or force us to pay for your lifestyle.

        Dig deep enough and it’s all about controlling women so you don’t have to work to attract and keep them.

        You’re projecting your own ideology onto others. It’s socialism and fascism in which the state imposes reproductive and lifestyle choices on women.

        In Judaism and Christianity, marriage has always been an individual choice on the part of both partners.

        1. “In Judaism and Christianity, marriage has always been an individual choice on the part of both partners.”

          True apart from the fact that it’s the most ridiculous lie I will probably read today, which is a bold prediction in this day and age.

          1. That is what those religions clearly say. Your problem is your ignorance.

            1. They say a lot of things. Marriage progressivism is not among them. And if the bible is progressive on marriage, nobody seemed to notice for thousands of years until secular society discovered it all by itself sometime around the 1990s.

              1. Putting up red herrings again.

                You claimed that Dig deep enough and it’s all about controlling women so you don’t have to work to attract and keep them. Everything else is window dressing..

                I pointed out that in both Judaism and Christianity, marriage is a voluntary agreement, so, yes, men had to work on attracting women. If you disagree, show me where either religion says anything different.

                Now, the way men attracted women under the Christian model is by being good providers, by being kind, and by being potentially good fathers. Progressivism, on the other hand, is creating a situation in which men attract women through looks and sexual prowess and where women can leave a marriage simply because they are bored or found someone else. Perhaps that’s what you meant by “you don’t have to work to attract and keep them”; if so, Christianity is guilty as charged, and unapologetically so.

                1. Christianity invented being a good father? God isn’t even a good father.

                  1. Christianity invented being a good father?

                    Now, the way men attracted women under the Christian model is by being good providers, by being kind, and by being potentially good fathers

                    God isn’t even a good father.

                    How would you know? You didn’t grow up with a good father and you know nothing about women or family.

        2. In Judaism and Christianity, marriage has always been an individual choice on the part of both partners.

          Is that so.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_marriage

          In Jewish law, an engagement (kiddushin) is a contract between a man and a woman where they mutually promise to marry each other, and the terms on which it shall take place.[6] The promise may be made by the intending parties or by their respective parents or other relatives on their behalf.[7] The promise is formalized in a document known as the Shtar Tena’im, the “Document of Conditions”, which is read prior to the badekin. After the reading, the mothers of the future bride and groom break a plate. Today, some sign the contract on the day of the wedding, some do it as an earlier ceremony, and some do not do it at all.

          In Haredi communities, marriages may be arranged by the parents of the prospective bride and groom, who may arrange a shidduch by engaging a professional match-maker (shadchan) who finds and introduces the prospective bride and groom and receives a fee for his or her services. The young couple is not forced to marry if either does not accept the other.

          1. “The young couple is not forced to marry if either does not accept the other.”

        3. Oh and let’s not even get into all of the European “Christian” monarchs of the Middle Ages who would marry off their children against their will to partners associated with other kingdoms for purely political reasons, all while claiming with a straight face that the monarchs represented God’s Will on Earth.

          1. And what does that have to do with conservatism or Christianity?

            In socialism, fascism, and communism, on the other hand, female reproductive choices are subjugated to the needs of the collective, just like any other individual choice. That’s not just theory, it’s what happens.

  44. I think the protesters should look for a job and support themselves. Guess I won’t be voting for the “Libertarian”.

    1. Yep. Ever hear of anyone looting a pair of workboots?

  45. I’m not sure I agree with the tactic, but I can sort of see it — get your ideas in front of a new audience. In any case, I’ll certainly vote for her. She’s not going to win anyway — it’s a protest vote. But if she did have a chance of winning, well then so much the better. There’s no possible, conceivable way that she wouldn’t be vastly better than both Biden and Trump (of course, it’s a REALLY low bar). I mean, what did we get out of Trump just today? More Canadian steel tariffs and a promise to extend Covid unemployment benefits by executive order. Sheesh.

  46. I know! Let’s play a game of… SPOT THE MARXIST!

    Announcer: I’m at a Black Lives Matter rally, let’s see how many Marxists we can spot… You there, white guy with the dreadlocks and the bong…

    Dreadlocks Dude: uh yeah?

    Announcer: Do you support Black Lives Matter?

    Dreadlocks Dude: uh yeah peace for everyone hey man do you have any doritos?

    Announcer: You support BLM, that means you’re a MARXIST!

    Announcer: Next, you there, black woman with the stroller.

    Black lady: Yes?

    Announcer: Do you support Black Lives Matter?

    Black lady: Yes of course I do! I don’t want my son here to be murdered by cops just for driving while black! What they did to George Floyd was indefensible! I absolutely believe black lives matter!

    Announcer: Congratulations, that makes you a MARXIST!

    Announcer: Next, you there, in the black shirt, black pants, and holding a brick.

    Black shirt dude: What is it man, I’m kinda busy.

    Announcer: Do you support Black Lives Matter?

    Black shirt dude: I don’t give a shit about any of that, I just come here to have some fun at the pigs’ expense. SMASH THE STATE! FRY SOME BACON!

    Announcer: But, do you support these protests?

    Black shirt dude: I guess, they give me the opportunity to break shit!

    Announcer: Congratulations, that makes you a MARXIST!

    Announcer: Next, you there, in the tweed jacket and bowtie.

    Tweed Jacket dude: Yes, young man?

    Announcer: Do you support Black Lives Matter?

    Tweed Jacket dude: Absolutely not! The working class should not be divided on the basis of race! The working class of all races should be united based on their shared economic interests to demand the capitalists hand over the means of production!

    Announcer: So you don’t support these protests?

    Tweed Jacket dude: No! They should be protesting inequality instead! Protesting at a courthouse is pointless! They should be protesting at the mansions of the billionaires who fund it all!

    Announcer: Since you don’t support the BLM protests, too bad, you are NOT a MARXIST!

    Tweed Jacket dude: But…

    Announcer: I’m sorry but that’s all the time we have for today’s episode of….
    SPOT THE MARXIST!

    1. Nice strawman argument. Completely irrelevant while also completely misrepresenting what anyone actually said and also while completely dehumanizing those who you disagree with. But yes you are the tolerant one.

      1. Also, not very clever and fairly juvenile snark.

        1. Well look who’s got a bug up his ass tonight.

        2. I thought it was pretty accurate and a little funny.

          1. That says it all…

      2. Nobody here was mentioned in chemjeff’s comment. If you see yourself in it, that’s on you. There are absolutely commenters here who argue anyone showing up at a BLM protest is supporting Marxism.

      3. Err, except it is essentially the position of the World Socialist Movement

        Kinda hard to claim strawman for pointing out what actual socialists say.

      4. There are no marxists who aren’t preening college students, and when they say marxists they really mean “the Jews.”

        Even the language has remained the same despite coming from the 1930s and another continent.

        1. Well not really. It’s not anti-Semitism, it is just plain demagoguery.

          1. I don’t think many of them realize that “cultural Marxism” is an antisemitic trope that goes back to Nazi Germany, but perhaps learning that it is will make them think twice before throwing around reckless propaganda.

            1. “Cultural Marxism” is shorthand for “society is naturally evolving in a way that I don’t like, and so instead of acknowledging this organic change, I will chalk it up to a nefarious conspiracy working to undermine America”. It’s not Nazi-talk, just an extension of right-wing paranoia.

              1. You and Tony are the Nazis.

            2. You keep repeating that lie. Lying: it’s all you have.

              1. Every time you rant against marxists, you aren’t ranting about anyone here or anyone in mainstream politics. There be no marxists. But you are ranting about someone, whether you realize it or not. You’re repeating alt-right slurs with a clear antisemitic history. I am just as sorry about it as I’m sure you are.

                1. Every time you rant against marxists, you aren’t ranting about anyone here or anyone in mainstream politics. There be no marxists.

                  Social justice, racial justice, radical feminism, etc. are all Marxist ideologies, both by content and by genealogy.

                  I am just as sorry about it as I’m sure you are.

                  Tony: you’re defending Marxist and fascist ideas, whether you know it or not. That’s not a slur, that’s a fact.

                  1. Capitalism is a Marxist idea.

                    1. Capitalism is a Marxist idea.

                      I agree. It’s an ill-defined idea that encompasses everything from free markets to fascism. That’s why Marxists like that idea: it lets them demonize anything that isn’t Marxist. Why do you insist on discussing economics in imprecise, tendentious Marxist terms?

                      Libertarians, classical liberals, and economists prefer the term “free markets” and prefer that specific system.

    2. Now do the Klan.

      1. You don’t need to look for the membership cards hanging out of their pockets, you know because of the robe thing.

    3. I think that last bit is the logical fallacy of contraposition, too. Or maybe it’s “denying the antecedent”.

      If you are a ski instructor, then you have a job.
      You are not a ski instructor
      Therefore, you have no job

      if p then q

      does not support the conclusion

      therefore if not p then not q

      Arguments of this form are invalid. Informally, this means that arguments of this form do not give good reason to establish their conclusions, even if their premises are true.

      1. I think you missed the entire point here.

      2. If you want to make that claim, you’re going to have to quote the relevant paragraphs; try again.

        1. Since you don’t support the BLM protests, too bad, you are NOT a MARXIST!

          P=”you support the BLM protests”
          Q=”you’re a Marxist”

          if P then Q, i.e. “if you support the BLM protests then you’re a Marxist”

          may (begging the question) or may not be true-, but if if the statements are true, it does not necessarily follow that

          if not P then not Q

          which is to say that “if you don’t support the BLM protests, then you’re not a Marxist” does not necessarily follow even if p -> q.

          But I “missed the point”. I suppose if I set aside the basic strawman argument peppered with logical fallacies, perhaps there was some sort of point trying to be made, something maybe along the lines of “Supporting the BLM protests does not necessarily make one a Marxist”, but it does make one a supporter of a Marxist organization. As I implied, I suppose it’s possible that someone who supports the Klan and their mission statement might not be a racist, but after you’ve been to a Klan rally and cheered along with them and supported them on social media, it’s going to be hard for me to accept that you’re not a racist.

          1. Here is the point.
            Talking about whether they are or aren’t Marxist is completely and utterly besides the point.

            1. That’s how they describe THEMSELVES! As Marxists.

              Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors said in a newly surfaced video from 2015 that she and her fellow organizers are “trained Marxists” – making clear their movement’s ideological foundation, according to a report.

              Cullors, 36, was the protégé of Eric Mann, former agitator of the Weather Underground domestic terror organization, and spent years absorbing the Marxist-Leninist ideology that shaped her worldview, Breitbart News reported.

              “The first thing, I think, is that we actually do have an ideological frame. Myself and Alicia in particular are trained organizers,” she said, referring to BLM co-founder Alicia Garza.

              “We are trained Marxists. We are super-versed on, sort of, ideological theories. And I think that what we really tried to do is build a movement that could be utilized by many, many black folk,” Cullors added in the interview with Jared Ball of The Real News Network.

          2. You all are attempting to stretch the meaning of the word “Marxism” beyond all recognition. It no longer means anything about class solidarity or worker ownership of the means of production. On the right wing, “Marxists” now means “people whom I don’t like who are doing things that I don’t like, who I can attach a scary label to that conjures up images of genuinely scary people from the past”. That’s all. You might as well call them “doodyheads”. As I tried to explain, REAL Marxists don’t buy into this racist bullshit, they want class solidarity, not race solidarity. If you believe in a race-blind society, YOU are closer to actual Marxists than these BLM people are. Think about that for a moment.

            1. You all are attempting to stretch the meaning of the word “Marxism” beyond all recognition. It no longer means anything about class solidarity or worker ownership of the means of production

              We aren’t doing that, Marxists did that. First, to Marx himself, Marxism meant a lot more than just class struggle. Second, after WWII, neo Marxists greatly revised Marxism, giving rust to critical race theory, social justice, and other forms of modern Marxism.

    4. BLM is a Marxist organization that is organizing BLM marches with Marxist objectives.

      I assume most of the actual marchers in the BLM marches are just useful idiots. Like you too.

      1. I’m a Marxist! You’re a Marxist! He’s a Marxist! She’s a Marxist! Wouldn’t you like to be a Marxist too?

      2. Tweed Jacket guy said it best: race-based solidarity and class-based solidarity are mutually exclusive. Guess which one BLM supports and which one Marxists support.

        1. Marxists are using race to attack liberal societies; solidarity has nothing to do with it.

      3. And arguing about whether BLM is Marxist or not is just a big red herring anyway. It is to distract from trying to address the legitimate concerns that they raise. It is so demagogues like yourself can avoid a real discussion and instead put a scary label on to people you don’t like in order to shut down all debate.

        1. A “real” discussion about “systemic racism”?

          1. How about a “real” discussion about any of the substantive issues that they bring up?

            This labeling crap is just demagoguery and narrative-pushing. Put a scary label on them in order to appeal to people’s emotional reaction to that label, instead of debate the issues in good faith. The label becomes more important than the argument or the issue. It is the same crap you all push when you label everyone to the left of Ted Cruz as a “socialist” and “progtard”.

            1. So, no, you don’t want to have a “real” discussion – you want people to accept your bullshit at face value.

              The fundamental philosophy behind a movement or organization is not a red herring

              1. Again:
                To you, the label is more important than the idea.

              2. I’ve been by their site.

                Let’s see, they claim that Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin were murdered, so they’re kind of based on a lie to start with. (Yes, lie, not mistake. It was clear neither were murder victims within a day or two, tops.)

                They’re very big on getting Biden elected, and alphabet soup rights. Even Politifact couldn’t avoid admitting that at least two of the three founders were Marxists.

                But I’ll readily concede that a lot of people who’ve become associated with them aren’t aware that they’ve become ‘useful idiots’, and are probably just interested in the less communist aspects of the organization.

            2. BLM has failed to articulate any real issues.

              1. BLM without any help from “libertarians” has achieved visibility on cop violence and has resulted in laws being changed and conversation about them being changed even more radically.

                I’m sure they appreciate your endless hysterics about communist plots. Very helpful in the advancement of freedom. As helpful as libertarians always are.

                1. BLM without any help from “libertarians” has achieved visibility on cop violence and has resulted in laws being changed and conversation about them being changed even more radically.

                  Cop violence is not an issue that affects the vast majority of Americans. And those Americans that it does affect could have changed it with a simple local vote; the voter turnout in places like Ferguson was in the single digits in local elections.

                  And the changes that are actually being made are going to hurt minorities the worst, in addition to creating more racial tensions and divisions.

                  I’m sure they appreciate your endless hysterics about communist plots.

                  I never made any claims about “communist plots”. Pointing out that BLM is an organization founded by self-admitted Marxists and espousing Marxist ideas is not about a plot, it’s a simple fact.

    5. Based on what I’ve seen in the news and elsewhere…you’re not wrong.

  47. BLM commits terrorism. So they forfeit the support of all true libertarians.

    1. BLM commits terrorism?

      1. Yes.
        It’s pretty much the only thing they do

    2. You are the very problem they are protesting. Decades and centuries of people unable to distinguish between black people exercising their rights and terrorists.

      Often followed by: that’s why we have to be terrorists first.

      1. Observe that the communist party tool planted here to convert us to the creed of aggression is getting frantic. LP votes have increased 80% a year for four years, and our vote slice growth resembles a hockey stick shifting 109 electoral votes. Red Chinese warmunism has backfired and its germ weapons are the current Chernobyl. Mystical colonial mercantilism and genocidal communo-fascist socialism are both headed for the dustbin, and good riddance! –Libertariantranslator

        1. You guys hate China now because it’s for Biden, right?

    3. True. The infiltrated and compromised national party may be trying to siphon off woke communist votes as a tactical move to help re-elect Boss Trump. But Jo was the second best available candidate and she PREFERRED the best one as a running mate, but was backstabbed. I’d wager that even if she got 270 electoral votes the Kleptocracy would change the constitution, start another war or tell its courts/goons to invalidate the results as when Tilden heat Hayes. The top slot candidacy is largely symbolic, but the LP is kicking ass in State-level elections.

  48. The differences between Black Lives Matter the organization and the movement are explained here.

    Black girl communists run the org and white girl commies run the “movement”.

    Whatever, its communist cunts all the way down.

  49. She has the problem of separating ‘the protestors’ from ‘BLM’.
    IMO protestors are genuine and deserving of my support; cops should kill people only when they are at risk of being killed if they don’t. Floyd’s death was murder, even if he claimed ‘I can’t breathe’ before the cop kneed his throat; the cop was never in danger.
    I live in CA so my vote is irrelevant, but if Ms Jorgensen manages to separate those two, she’ll get my vote.
    In the late ’60s, there was a difference between supporting draft resisters and supporting Black Panthers; Ms Jorgensen is going to have to articulate that sort of differentiation here if she hopes for any sort of vote-count.

  50. Wow! She just aligned herself with the self-declared marxists who defend racist practices in the name of “anti-racism”. I typically vote libertarian, or don’t vote at all, but this election I was in doubt as so much is at stake, but thanks for making it easy: after seeing this I’m definitely voting Trump, not that I love the guy, but between nationalism and communism, I opt, begrudgingly, for the former.

  51. Oh, I can support the protestors. I can support them all day long. I have supported the protestors. The police needs reform! And if anything, free speech must be protected.

    But how many people were killed during these protests? How many stores were destroyed and looted? It has long since ceased to be a protest. And all the peaceful protestors and now irrelevant.

  52. Here’s a question some reporter should ask her. Even someone from “Reason.” Has Jo Jorgensen seen the first half of the George Floyd video? For that matter, where does Jo and the Libertarian Party stand on a prosecutor withholding the first half of the video from the public and selectively disclosing the most inflammatory part?

    1. And maybe ask about the McCloskeys

  53. She is not wrong because everyone should support these kind of protests.

    1. You mean the kind with arson, looting, assault? Or the other kind?

  54. The LP is a joke. Jo is a joke. Reason is a joke.
    Yuri Bezmenov was right…we would lose through our colleges and our own ‘intellectuals’ seeped in this cultural Marxism
    They are now infecting everyone and everything with this garbage
    Sad day when someone named Vermin Supreme would be a better candidate. No offense to Vermin….

    1. “I think we should support the protesters, but, at the same time, get rid of the opportunistic people hijacking the movement.”
      Huh?
      Who should we support, the”protesters” or the “demonstrators”? To ‘demonstrate’ is to display, to ‘protest’ is to object; and it’s an objectionable display Ms. Jorgensen believes we should support.

      The ‘movement’ is powered by the intellectually unsophisticated who do not posses he cognitive abilities to process loss or disappointments. Unable to respond appropriately, the immature answer ‘the call of the wild’ and throw a tantrum.

      My father said in 1968, Crowds have no ‘mind’ an you don’t either if you join one. I would keep a safe distance between myself and the mindless, unless I was running for President. 😉

      1. Agent J: Why the big secret? People are smart. They can handle it.

        Agent K:: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.

  55. 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 pageGo to link.

  56. Making­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Cash more than $15k to $18k consistently just by doing basic online work. I have gotten $18376 a month ago just by working on the web. Its a simple and basic occupation to do from home and its profit are greatly improved than customary office work. Each individual can join this activity now just by pursue this link……..go to this site home media tech tab for more detail support your hear Here══════❥❥❥❥ Check Site Here

  57. Bitch done been bit by a bat.

    1. From which she will emerge with superpowers. Just wait.

  58. Libertarian feminism…

    SOCIAL › MARITAL RAPE

    Should marital rape be classified and punished as severely as non-marital rape?
    JO JORGENSEN VOTERBASE Yes, and consentual sex with a spouse under the age of 18 should be classified as statutory rape

    1. Libertarian feminism…

      Ain’t no such thing.

      1. Oh look! Another mystical conservative gelding butthurt over the Supreme Court copying the LP plank into the Roe v Wade decision! My schadenfreude goes out to all those poor, sad, miserable, cowardly, wannabee, ex-male girl-bulliers.

    2. She just gets better and better the more you look at her statements…

      Clown shoes.

  59. Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job. Click For Full Detail.

  60. HEY REASON, SOME WORDS OF WISDOM. Civil disobedience may be justifiable, in some cases, when and if an individual disobeys a law in order to bring an issue to court, as a test case. Such an action involves respect for legality and a protest directed only at a particular law which the individual seeks an opportunity to prove to be unjust. The same is true of a group of individuals when and if the risks involved are their own.

    But there is no justification, in a civilized society, for the kind of mass civil disobedience that involves the violation of the rights of others—regardless of whether the demonstrators’ goal is good or evil. The end does not justify the means. No one’s rights can be secured by the violation of the rights of others. Mass disobedience is an assault on the concept of rights: it is a mob’s defiance of legality as such.

    The forcible occupation of another man’s property or the obstruction of a public thoroughfare is so blatant a violation of rights that an attempt to justify it becomes an abrogation of morality. An individual has no right to do a “sit-in” in the home or office of a person he disagrees with—and he does not acquire such a right by joining a gang. Rights are not a matter of numbers—and there can be no such thing, in law or in morality, as actions forbidden to an individual, but permitted to a mob.

    The only power of a mob, as against an individual, is greater muscular strength—i.e., plain, brute physical force. The attempt to solve social problems by means of physical force is what a civilized society is established to prevent. The advocates of mass civil disobedience admit that their purpose is intimidation. A society that tolerates intimidation as a means of settling disputes—the physical intimidation of some men or groups by others—loses its moral right to exist as a social system, and its collapse does not take long to follow.

    Politically, mass civil disobedience is appropriate only as a prelude to civil war—as the declaration of a total break with a country’s political institutions.

    1. If you don’t know who wrote the above and how long ago, you might be in the wrong place.

      1. Or wrong Party.

      2. They’re not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers. […] Most of them are my enemies. […] I’ve read nothing by Libertarians (when I read them, in the early years) that wasn’t my ideas badly mishandled—i.e., the teeth pulled out of them—with no credit given.

        The trouble with the world today is philosophical: only the right philosophy can save us. But this party plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes them with the exact opposite—with religionists, anarchists and every intellectual misfit and scum they can find—and call themselves libertarians and run for office.

        Interesting lady. Not a big fan of libertarians.

    2. Ayn Rand said the genocide of the Native Americans was justified because they didn’t have their civilization shit together in time.

      1. Tony says that Native Americans are an inferior race who needed the benevolent protection of white Europeans.

        Of course, in reality, Native Americans were fierce, well-organized civilizations who successfully fought off European invasions for thousands of years until finally being wiped out by a natural disaster, namely a series of epidemics.

  61. “opportunistic people hijacking the movement.”

    is the new and improved version of

    “If only Stalin knew.”

  62. Support Black Lives Matter when 90% of their claims are demonstrably false? No thanks. I don’t need to support BLM to advocate for the reform of qualified immunity and a change in police culture.

    Do the right thing: don’t support BLM, oppose them.

    1. If the Klan supported a few good ideas, like say lower taxes and an end to the war on drugs, that doesn’t mean I need to align myself with them.

      1. I wouldn’t vote for George Wallace either, though his veep was good on defense. I would have voted for Hospers on the LP ticket but had by then moved to a non-Nixonian country.

  63. This is one of the reasons I won’t vote for JoJo, but I will support local LP candidates. She has a lot of feelings but is short on substance with her actual platform (many points look good on the surface but lack any detail).

    Is it still throwing my vote away if I choose not to exercise it for president?

    1. Is it still throwing my vote away if I choose not to exercise it for president?

      Yes.
      Carefully review the party platforms, and vote for the candidate of the party that is least destructive of your personal liberty.

      1. And if you conclude that the guy who gasses protesters to clear them away for a Bible-fondling photo op is better for liberty, you haven’t studied carefully enough. Probably weren’t remotely interested in carefully studying the matter.

        1. Your anti-endorsement may encourage me to to vote for that dude. While I don’t post here often, I’ve read enough of your trip to distrust anything you say.

          1. Good news! Even in the age of the internet, there remain in the desert of chaos the sweet oases of reliable sources. All it takes is a willingness to seek out facts regardless of your political biases or your deepest hopes. Go forth and read Wikipedia. Consult its primary sources if you must. Read science journals if you want to know about science. Read history if you want to know about history. Learn. Don’t take my word for anything.

      2. Vermin Supreme didn’t make it out of the convention, so my answer is still none of the above.

    2. Yes you are. You are also not competent at math, and do not know what a sigmoid replacement curve looks like not how much more law-changing clout a spoiler vote packs than a vote wasted on bootlicking the kleptocracy.

  64. So I watched V for Vendetta last night. Well, part of it – up through the part where V tortures Natalie Portman and she reaches catharsis.
    It’s really a poorly executed film, but with some very interesting ideas.
    V is a terrorist seeking revenge on and overthrow of the Big Pharma executives that experimented on humans, released a mass virus, then rose to power and instituted a totalitarian government.
    Sensible objections.
    But in the movie, these things happened. In story-world, Big Pharma did experiment on humans and release a virus to usher in totalitarian government. The people who did this did become that government’s leading officials, and did practice State media, political murder, and real repression of rights.

    What we see with the BLM movement today is that they have the same mindset as V and the same goals as the government he wishes to overthrow.
    They so very badly want to be “noble revolutionaries”, with all the emotional investment that entails.
    Problem is: the bad guys and injustices V is fighting directly exist only in story-world, but the protesters need to believe it’s real. They have the psychological-emotional need to live in story-world, because their demand for simple and easily identifiable oppression outstrips its supply. At least in the sources they’d like it to.
    They’ve been manipulated into a counter revolution. The evil cabal, the totalitarian lust, oppressive control of media and social interaction – that’s their side. Their movement is nothing but pure projection.
    The injustice they care about is fictional. It’s the same Hollywood narrative that they’ve been putting on screen for decades.
    Here’s an example: the moral of Natalie Portman’s captivity is delivered by her narration of a diary written on a roll of toilet paper left by a prior political prisoner. It’s the story of a lesbian who had to hide her sexuality (“who she was”), was rejected by her parents when they found out, and was eventually sent to die in the gulag.
    Because she was gay. The “different” are brutally oppressed.
    It’s so simple.
    Fortunately, it’s ENTIRELY inconsistent with modern America, at least in the particulars. Unfortunately for the resentfully hollow, it’s ENTIRELY inconsistent with modern America. Unfortunately for him/her because he/she FEELS oppressed and derives his/her meaning from that self conceived martyrdom – but the source of that oppression isn’t traditional, it’s not what the moral says it should be.
    Psychosis comes from the need for the moral to be true, thus the demand that events fit the narrative. The Hollywood moral provides a ready picture that is adopted by the individual and conformed to the collective.

    These are preliminary thoughts. I’ll have to refine them further, as I think the above is delivered less than clearly.

    1. “They so very badly want to be “noble revolutionaries”, with all the emotional investment that entails.”

      I haven’t seen V for Vendetta but your description of the plot dovetails with the plot of many films. “The Breakfast Club” came to mind, except rather than one individual versus a criminal state, it’s a small group against a ?criminal? state, or a state that is supposed to be read as criminal – school detention. There’s a zillion of these variations on the little guy fighting the system against all odds.

      US pop culture has told that story so many times, I think some people may believe it’s the only possible story. Disney has told the story lots of times just on its own. I think leftists object to the fairy tale because the little guy is always portrayed alone; he never bands together with his peers to successfully overthrow; if he wins, it’s on his own. Your description of the plot is that “the system” isn’t the bad guy in contemporary US; the little guy is fighting the wrong fight, or shouldn’t be fighting at all; or the person in the little guy role isn’t really a little guy.

      It’s proof of the power of literature that so many people feel this plot is the one they must re-enact. People aren’t driven to re-enact the Constitutional convention, or any other story where a group with divergent individual interests gets together to accomplish something larger than themselves (except team sports movies), and they succeed.

      The Protestant pilgrim’s-progress narratives – individual experiences struggle, eventually gains salvation/liberation (or a farm, or his freedom, or citizenship, etc) ; the hero’s journey; a Buddhist conception of enlightenment (maybe the western portrayal of it), it is absolutely a foundational myth of the US. Utopian christianity relates also; the individual or society increasingly purified from sin through and approaching union with the divine (at which point injustice will cease.)

      We lack stories of the boring devotionals of keeping the flame lit, the procedurals of maintaining a difficult coalition, the value of the individual unlikely to be martyred or purified, the system which is imperfect but not the enemy. Those stories are not told as literature very often, they might not make good clickbait. And unfortunately the stories that began as myth, religion and archetype are not identified as that as often as they should be; applied to a wide variety of practical contexts, people retain the memory of the “right answer” and find it unerringly in any situation, whether the “right answer” is a functional response or not. Some of the Marvel Cinematic Universe films actually spend time on the challenges of being a good leader and the work of maintaining a responsible government, I’m thinking of “Black Panther,” where Killmonger is the shortsighted would-be revolutionary and T’challa has to face the government’s (and his father’s) past mistakes while maintaining power – and succeeds. That plot is too rare. Thor’s arc addressed some of the same themes.
      But yeah, they don’t watch enough Marvel movies. If the only archetypal story you have cultural access to is the one where the oppressed individual fights for freedom, then regardless of your individual circumstances, you are required to feel oppressed and fight for liberation. It does create some weird fireworks.
      Another classic is “Brazil” – I can’t claim I understood all of it, but state repression unleashed due to clerical error is also a relatable situation. An archetypal story for our times.

    2. You’re right, if you assume that the substance of their protests is a fantasy, it seems pretty silly for them to protest.

      And as a white man I feel I am in the perfectly objective position to adjudicate whether racism does in fact exist anymore.

  65. Didn’t Jim Morrison say something about meeting at the back of the blue bus? Two years after telling the kids at the Miami concert they were all slaves, a new nation was brought forth, dedicated to the proposition that all men and women have individual rights. And here comes your chance to vote for candidate on that platform in every state and county in the middle of a communist dictatorship’s global germ warfare outbreak. –Libertariantranslator

  66. BS it’s time to bust heads in Portland and Seattle.

    1. They’re in the suburbs now.

      That’s a line that shouldn’t be breached.

      Does Reason support lawlessness?

  67. Start making cash online work easily from home.i have received a paycheck of $24K in this month by working online from home.i am a student and i just doing this job in my spare HERE? Read More

  68. FBI stats show that the premise of the BLM is false, it’s really Black Violent Crime that Matters, search Youtube for : Heather Mac Donald: The Truth About Crime, Race, and Policing in America
    for a definitive rebuttal of BLM narrative. The BLM activism is a Leftist distraction effort from the truth you’re not supposed to know.

    1. There has never been a more empty, meaningless slogan of a name in history than this one.

      A black civilian in America is at least ten times more likely to be killed by another black civilian than by a law enforcement officer of any race, but they don’t give a crap at all. If you’re a black victim of black gang violence, your life doesn’t matter to these people.

  69. Attempted fire at the Police Union building in Portland. Is Reason condemning this or quietly cheering it on?

    1. It goes without saying that libertarians do not support any such initiation of violence or destruction of property. It is the one principle we hold as a core value. You may have heard of it.

      Cannot speak for the articles or comments here. We are all free to read what we choose. I can or should be able to read the Communist Manifesto or the Q Anon channels if I wish. Restricting those is to restrict the free flow of information. If Reason chose to moderate or restrict content it is also their right to do so. Never let government control that. It is a road to tyranny.

      Jo J. If you read what she has said did a good job parsing things out. She did not ever endorse the BLM official platform. She met with some people from there and had a discussion. She said “I think we should support the protesters, but, at the same time, get rid of the opportunistic people hijacking the movement.”

      “They are going around basically inserting themselves into peaceful protest. And I’ve seen many clips of the protesters saying, ‘Stop it. Go away. You’re not helping us. We don’t want you here.'”

      That is not an endorsement of anything. It is a lecture.

      First rule of leadership. Listen first. Talk later.

  70. She is upset at President Donald Trump for saying, “If you don’t have [COVID-19] symptoms…don’t get the test.”

    POTUS Trump made that statement on March 16th; it was a very different world then. He is not saying that today. I think the ire is, if there really is any, misplaced.

    As a general matter, I don’t have an issue with protesters. Protest away. Where I draw the line is property damage and violence. You belong in a cage when you cross that line.

  71. Jo Jorgensen makes some good points, but ultimately she is wrong about her core point — that we should support BLM protesters.
    The ORIGINAL protests about police brutality, calling for reform, were legit. As a longtime Libertarian, I’ve been a vehement critic of unaccountable police actions.
    https://riderrants.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-san-diego-police-department-is.html

    The initial protests were successful. Cities and states are scrambling to enact such reforms. It ain’t perfect (utopia is not an option), but it’s a big victory for BLM.

    But BLM has quickly morphed into a “reparations” outfit, demanding all sorts of government subsidies and enforced advantages for blacks.

    Perhaps more important, BLM cares only about a relative handful of blacks murdered by police. And ONLY about blacks.

    What they DON’T care about is the VERY high black murder rate — both murderers and victims. Four times as frequent as the national average murder rate.

    For every black wrongly killed by police there are well over 100 blacks murdered by other blacks — almost all young male blacks. BLM has NEVER protested about that.

    I’ve written about this, but no MSM will touch the documented article below:
    https://riderrants.blogspot.com/2020/07/all-black-lives-matter-but-not-to-blm.html

    We libertarians should OPPOSE these latest BLM protests. My motto is that ALL Black Lives Matter — but somehow that’s considered racist by BLM supporters.

    People are outright afraid to criticize blacks, or black organizations. Libertarians should have more backbone in such matters.

  72. There has not been a “peaceful” demonstration since the Tea Party.

    If you block a pedestrian from walking past your demonstration, you’re not peaceful. If you block a road so that no one can drive by, you’re not peaceful. When you forcefully interfere with an individual exercising their rights, you’re not peaceful.

    50 years ago I argued with Murray Rothbard about his wanting to work with the Black Panthers. The Panthers were just a bunch of street thugs. Rothbard grew up in Brooklyn, there is no way that he could not see what these thugs were unless he was deliberately blinding himself. He was a brilliant economist, but he would not see the facts.

    There is not now, nor has there ever been, such a thing as a “left libertarian”. If you do not believe in private property, you cannot be a libertarian. If people are violating property rights, there are no alliances possible with them. Jo is a fool if she thinks otherwise.

    Where were these demonstrators when Kelly Thomas was brutally beaten to death by two thugs with badges? Where were they when Philando Castile was shot to death by a cop who panicked? They only appear in election years where deaths can be used to sway elections. It’s a lie that black lives matter to these people. Only black deaths matter and only black deaths that can be used to political advantage.

    Jo Jorgensen needs stop pandering and start defending liberty.

    1. It’s easy to be peaceful when your only real grievance is black man president bad.

  73. BLM calls themselves “comrades.” That’s dog whistle communism. Sorry, black lives do matter, but I can’t support an organization that wants to enslave mankind.

  74. I am making a good pay from home 1900 Buckets/week, that is brilliant, beneath a year agone i used to be unemployed amid a monstrous economy. I pass on God consistently i used to be invested these bearings, and at present, I should pay it forward and impart it to everyone..check my site
    .

  75. Corona is big threat of the century which effect physically, mentally and financially/ To over cusiouresome these difficulties and make full use of this hostage period and make online earning for more detail visit the given link:check my site
    .

  76. How exactly does she want to support the protesters? It’s easy to say that you care about their grievances but come with some practical actions of support.

  77. “Jorgensen sees private companies enacting mask policies as a sign that most Americans are taking the pandemic seriously.”

    In OH, it’s a sign that most are at least giving lip service to Papa Doc DeWine’s statewide mask-mandate. And one expects this is mainly to avoid legal liability from the “lawsuit de jour” club.

    Now, the businesses that the state licenses (e.g. bars & restaurants serving alcohol) are forced by threat of license removal to be unpaid deputies of the state to enforce the mandate.

    I don’t wear a mask and only at my local Walgreens did a clerk inform me that “next time” I need to wear one…

    1. How brave of you.

    2. Look Ohio is not that bad. You can get anything you need or want. Schools where I live are not going to open and that was a decision from the local school board. Just talked with a teacher friend yesterday. She works with special needs young children. No idea how this is going to work.

      The reason to wear a mask at Walgreens has nothing to do with you. Susie at the register deals with hundreds of people every day. She has the courage to show up and do her job for what, her $15/hr I don’t know. She does so as nicely and as well as it can be done and wishes you a good day. I was just there yesterday.

      So big brave man like you, show her the same courtesy. Be a mensch. She is wearing one. You think that is easy to do for 9 hours straight?

      She deserves any protection she can get. She goes home to her family at the end of her shift.

      Saw Dr Acton left the health department. I always liked her. Good doc who was perhaps in the wrong job. At one point she was getting up at 4am to read through the studies and data with death threats and protesters outside her house. Who needs that? Now she is back in the private sector and no doubt much happier.

  78. thanks for letting me know! i was considering voting for this woke joke! whew! crisis narrowly averted!

  79. Jo Jorgensen makes some good points, but ultimately she is wrong about her core point — that we should support BLM protesters.
    The ORIGINAL protests about police brutality, calling for reform, were legit. As a longtime Libertarian, I’ve been a vehement critic of unaccountable police actions.

    The initial protests were successful. Cities and states are scrambling to enact such reforms. It ain’t perfect (utopia is not an option), but it’s a big victory for BLM.

    But BLM has quickly morphed into a “reparations” outfit, demanding all sorts of government subsidies and enforced advantages for blacks.

    Perhaps more important, BLM cares only about a relative handful of blacks murdered by police. And ONLY about blacks.

    What they DON’T care about is the VERY high black murder rate — both murderers and victims. Four times as frequent as the national average murder rate.

    For every black wrongly killed by police there are well over 100 blacks murdered by other blacks — almost all young male blacks. BLM has NEVER protested about that.

    I’ve written about this, but no MSM will touch the documented article. PC rules.

    We libertarians should OPPOSE these latest BLM protests. My motto is that ALL Black Lives Matter — but somehow that’s considered racist by BLM supporters.

    People are outright afraid to criticize blacks, or black organizations. Libertarians should have more backbone in such matters.

  80. Goodness.

    I hope she wasn’t banking on winning over any libertarians/Libertarians with this kind of talk.

  81. Start making cash online work easily from home.i have received a paycheck of $24K in this month by working online from home.i am a student and i just doing this job in my spare HERE? Read More

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.