Property Rights

There Is No Defense for Looting

It is one thing to peacefully march against injustice, and quite another to burn down what others built up.

|

National Public Radio's interview last month with Vicky Osterweil, author of a new book called "In Defense of Looting," generated so much pushback that the network had to add a clarification providing more "context" to help readers "fully assess" her "controversial" views. But there isn't anything that NPR's editors could do to contextualize Osterweil's dangerous message.

In technical terms, her argument—that the American system of property rights is oppressive and looting and mayhem will bring about positive social change—is nuts. The interview contains myriad quotations that read like a parody from The Babylon Bee. I'm not unhappy that NPR published it, as it's important to know what such people think. But why didn't the interviewer ask any tough questions?

NPR asked Osterweil to talk about rioting as a tactic, in the way a lifestyle reporter might ask a celebrity to talk a little about a new movie. As the author explains, rioting accomplishes "important things." For starters, "It gets people what they need for free immediately, which means that they are capable of living and reproducing their lives without having to rely on jobs or a wage…That's looting's most basic tactical power as a political mode of action."

Got that? People steal stuff because they then don't have to pay for it and, well, that means they don't have to work to earn money to pay for those things. I'm not sure how theft becomes a "political mode of action," but Osterweil assured readers that breaking store windows and grabbing consumer goods is more important now than ever—given that "during COVID times" jobs are unreliable, unavailable, or sometimes dangerous.

As an aside, many official coronavirus-related policies strike me as glorified looting, even though lawmakers don't use bricks and Molotov cocktails. The governor, and even the president, can declare that people may live rent-free in other people's buildings. Congress can run up debt to send us stimulus checks. Governors can arbitrarily force businesses to shut their doors, thus destroying what entrepreneurs have spent their lives creating.

Fortunately, the author explains traditional looting isn't simply about stealing. It has a deeper and more uplifting purpose. "It also attacks the very way in which food and things are distributed," Osterweil added. "It attacks the idea of property, and it attacks the idea that in order for someone to have a roof over their head or have a meal ticket, they have to work for a boss, in order to buy things…It points to the way in which that's unjust."

Who knew?

When my oldest daughter was very young, she asked why we have to pay for things. "Why can't everything be free?" I explained that if everything were free, no one would work or produce anything or invest in factories and stores. In almost no time, we'd be staring down vast shortages—and people would go hungry. Violent thugs would rob and pillage. Society would collapse. That was a great question from a 6-year-old, but Osterweil is an adult.

Unfortunately, many American adults seem to share this childish view of the world. After my column explaining what rent control does to small landlords was posted in a left-leaning social-media group, I was taken aback by the vicious ad hominem responses. As a building owner, I'm apparently a greedy oppressor—and never mind the investments, renovations, and hard work that goes into providing quality housing for others at an agreed-upon price. One poster even called me a member of the "petty bourgeoisie." Good grief.

Modern-day leftists have no understanding of how society builds wealth and prosperity. They revile those who create it, even as they post photos to the Internet from their iPhones. Do they believe such wonderful innovations fell from the sky? Didn't any of their professors teach them about the violence, starvation, and misery that took place in Soviet Russia—and every other society that attacked the idea of private property?

"Destroying a small business is akin to destroying an artist's studio, a scholar's library or a chef's kitchen," wrote Steven Horwitz, a professor of free enterprise at Ball State University in Indiana. "It's not just a matter of the loss of material goods, and insurance isn't the point. It's a loss of the space in which they make meaning in their lives and for others." People who defend rioting defend the destruction of the very things that make us human. They are the ones being unjust.

I'm a strong defender of peaceful protests against police abuse and have been writing about the need for reform for years. But it's one thing to peacefully march against injustice, and quite another to burn down what others built up. It's a warning sign for our society when it doesn't occur to a major news outlet that a defense of looting deserves more scrutiny than a puff interview.

This column was first published in the Orange County Register.

NEXT: Review: Skin: A History of Nudity in the Movies

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. Why wasn’t this article written 100 days ago? I get a terrible book was written recently, but this honestly makes Reason look like it is just following the narrative shift the media pushed a week or 2 ago.

    1. I’m going to cut the guy some slack. He didn’t equivocate. He didn’t try to pretend that the looters had ever been justified in their actions. It took a while for these type articles to get published in reason (and I did notice that it was published elsewhere first), but I’m going to welcome the return to basic respect for other people and their rights.

      1. They pushed the mostly peaceful narrative here so hard, outside of their guest reporting, that I can’t give them the benefit of the doubt on this. Even 2 weeks ago they were posting articles about peaceful protests in D.C. that were not. This even after their guest columnist had been truthful about portland for a few weeks.

        That fact that this aligns so nicely with the narrative switch makes it seem worse.

        1. Oh, I should have been more clear. I’m cutting the author of the article slack. Not Reason. Reason made its bed on this one. I just don’t want to burn the author at the stake just because Reason took their sweet time remembering what being a libertarian means.

          1. Reason was claiming that sending federal agents to reinforce security at a courthouse in Portland was “lawlessness” and accusing Trump of “shredding federalism” and sending “outside agitators”.

            1. “What, do you care more about property than lives?”

              “When the property belongs to someone who has committed no wrong, and the lives are the lives of people trying to steal that property… yes. Absolutely. Any more stupid questions?”

              1. “What, do you care more about property than lives?”

                “When it’s my property and your life, why shouldn’t I?”

                1. ★ 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……….► CashApp

          2. This is just their 180 degree pivot, on a dime, in lockstep with the rest of the msm

            1. “This is just their 180 degree pivot, on a dime, in lockstep with the rest of the msm”

              It all happened within a week of Don Lemon pointing out that Biden’s polling numbers were sliding because of the rioting.

          3. I’m not sure what Reason you’ve been reading. The articles I remember put “peaceful” in scare-quotes pretty early. Yes, they frequently quoted other stories about “peaceful” riots – but often in a context that criticized that characterization.

              1. That search doesn’t prove what you seem to think it does.

                1. Yes. It does. It shows no scare quotes. You could easily prove me wrong by linking to a specific example. You haven’t for some reason.

              2. I looked at the first few pages of results there. Don’t see anything that tries to characterize violence and looting as peaceful protest. How about some specific examples?
                I agree that they have not been covering the violence and looting very well at all (with at least one exception). And I’d like to see more on the dishonest media coverage. But I don’t see where they are mischaracterizing violent protests/riots as peaceful protest.

                1. Did you see what I responded to or just jump to a different argument?

                  The articles I remember put “peaceful” in scare-quotes pretty early.

                  You don’t have to move goalposts for other posters in your rush to defend Reason.

                  1. Jumped to a different argument. Isn’t that how this works?
                    Sorry, I didn’t realize that your argument rested entirely on whether or not they were actually using scare quotes. I thought the main point was whether or not they were trying to inaccurately describe events.
                    I see plenty to criticize Reason for. I just like it to be accurate. A lot of people read a lot into and project a lot onto what Reason does without much justification as far as I can see. They have done an awful job of covering the riots. But I don’t think they have been actively dishonest.

                    1. My Boy pal makes $75/hour on net. he has been job less for six months. However he earns$16453 genuinely working at the internet for some hours.
                      Immediately join from the source….► CashApp

            1. Sure. “Peaceful” looting is so much more critical than peaceful looting.

    2. There may be no defense, but there sure has been a Hell of a lot of denial.

    3. Seriously. I’m glad the fucking ‘libertarian’ magazine has finally said this, but fuck that it took this long.

    4. Does anybody know where this Vicky Osterweil or any of her family lives? I’d like to go a make their property, mine. For the sake of justice of course.
      She did say on national public radio that she believes it’s perfectly OK.

    5. Greenhut doesn’t write for Reason. He writes for California newspapers. They have a few rational people left.

    6. It was first published in the Orange County Register. Reason is starting to panic on the thought of California having some red in that blue stew.

    7. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing j0bs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8894 a month. I’ve started this j0b and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…++++++++++COPY HERE====Money90

  2. “It gets people what they need for free immediately, which means that they are capable of living and reproducing their lives without having to rely on jobs or a wage…That’s looting’s most basic tactical power as a political mode of action.”
    Stalin robbed banks.

    1. Is that really the left’s justification for looting? That it allows some people to consume without the onerous task of producing?

      1. There is also the reparations angle.

      2. That’s the excuse. Victimhood is the justification.

      3. I don’t know anyone on the Left that believes this. It’s just this particular twat’s whine. I only have one friend on the Left who defends looting, and his excuse for it is “emotional catharsis”.

        1. I know plenty of people who think the world should provide what they need (or want) with no effort, i.e. work, provided. They seem to be either child-like, with little understanding of how things are produced, or futurists with a commie bent, who imagine technology that automates production so cheaply that humans do not have to work.

        2. What about people who get emotional catharsis from shooting looters? They have feelings too!

        3. I don’t know anyone on the Left that believes this. It’s just this particular twat’s whine.

          So not only do you know what those in your immediate circle of acquaintances really believe, that tiny number of people is fully representative of “the Left” as a whole?

    2. It’s cute that she pretends like people are taking things they need to survive like food when we all know they were stealing stacks of shoes, flat screen TVs, jewelry and other luxury items. Or just burning things to the ground without taking anything, like car lots. That “moral” argument is about as strong as a dollar store tissue.

      1. 2 can play this game.

        Since the looters are only looting what they need to survive, I’d be totally justified in shooting them to take the same items. I need to survive too, right?

      2. “She” is also pretending to be a she. The dude’s name used to be Willie Osterweil, but I think he kept his actual willie.

    3. If you looted and burned her home, I’m betting Vicky wouldn’t approve of it.

      1. I was kinda thinking that might be a good teaching moment for her.

      2. My guess is that she doesn’t have a home, but is couch surfing on NPR staff couches.

        1. “She” is a transvestite who lives in Philly with “her” girlfriend, who wrote a book about destroying the family. Marxist trash.

          1. But so cutting edge!

          2. so “she” is an “it”.

      3. I used to think of minority communities as being hard working, law abiding, and peasable peoples.
        But all this violence, arson, and shooting now has me wondering if there is something to the negative stereotypes.

  3. “There is no defense for looting”

    Sure there is. Well, I mean, I guess technically the answer is “you don’t need a defense for looting”, more than “there is no defense”. But if you are protesting for the right team, prosecutors across the country have decided that they will not prosecute. Even if you are involved in murder, in some cases. (here’s looking at you, Portland!)

    1. “There is no defense for looting”

      Said in regards to some creature that wrote a book literally called “In Defense Of Looting”.

      Not saying it’s a good defense, mind you, but it does give some insight into how the mind (sic) of this person works. Magical thinking, belief in fairies and unicorns and Santa Claus, the mind of a 4-year old child who has no idea of where shit comes from, who thinks that wishing for something is sufficient to make it come true.

      1. Some needs to write a book countering this idiot authors ideas; perhaps it could be called “In Defense Of Shooting Looters In The Face”.

        In response to the author of this article writing “I’m not sure how theft becomes a “political mode of action”, I would say theft is the primary mode of political action. It’s otherwise know as taxation.

        Also, the answer to the question “Didn’t any of their professors teach them about the violence, starvation, and misery that took place in Soviet Russia—and every other society that attacked the idea of private property?” is: no, they lied about it – just like every other lefty scumbag ever.

        1. Why do conservatives think they’re the only people who “know” about soviet Russia?

          1. I dunno, fuckstain. Why don’t you go to a website where conservatives hang out and ask there?

            Or, Tony, you could just choke on your face diaper.

          2. It’s actually granting the benefit of the doubt. The alternative being that lefty shits actually do know how fucked the Soviets were, and advocate for it anyway.

            Your choice. Are you merely ignorant, or actively evil?

            1. Why not both?

              1. Ignorance and evil are by no means mutually exclusive.

                As for “redneck killer” being a sock for Tony, that is quite believable. Come to think of if you don’t see both posting on the same thread, do you?

                Now watch as Tony tries to switch back and forth and forgets which one he is!

                1. Tony’s famous for thinking anyone who isn’t a leftist shill like himself must instead be a conservative. His tiny brain can’t accommodate more than two categories for anything.

                  And we all know how he feels about rednecks. Musta been all those swirlies they gave him in high school.

                  1. You totally misunderstand my position. I believe true libertarians can and do exist. Just rarely on this website’s comments boards. Do you not see all the Trumptard trash, or do you think Trumptard trash are somehow libertarians despite all the fascism?

                    1. Fascism.

                      You keep using that whord….

            2. Intentional ignorance *is* actively evil.

    2. One good looting: Looting the homes of the SS after WWII. But we actually didn’t do that because even looting the vilest of our enemies is against the military code of conduct. We haven’t countenanced that since the Civil War. Sure soldiers still do it all the time, but they get court martialed if caught.

      1. Yeah we just raped German women. Looting though? Were too good for that!

        1. That was your Soviet pals, dumbass.

        2. You raped German women? And you’re PROUD of it?

    3. The defense for looting is that no one is really born with natural (or God-given) rights, they’re an artificial construct. So whatever you can take is yours.

      The problem is that such a system of take what you can discourages production of the things you want, and makes everyone poorer. I think most of the intellectual leftists realize this, they just want an army of mostly peaceful protestors to us to threaten and intimidate their way to changes toward a more socialist system.

      A system where people respect the natural rights of others leads to stability and prosperity and peaceful cooperation. Some people are more productive or more creative and reap greater rewards, and are free to do with those rewards what they choose (spend, donate or invest), creating a virtuous circle of more spending and investments.

  4. “It attacks the idea of property”

    Not really. It attacks the property itself and its owner.

    One suspects Vicky Osterweil is, um, disturbed.

    1. Osterweil’s understanding does attack the idea of property. Her justification is “if I need something, I can just take it from someone else who has it” In order to even consider that you have to reject the idea that anyone can own the goods in question

      1. So I can take stuff from looters, who “need” it, because that attacks the idea of property, too?

        1. Presumably if need it more. Where are you on the progressive stack? Do you have enough oppression points? That sort of reasoning.

        2. You’ve hit the nail on the head of their problem regarding property. Further, since they’re willing to damage property to get other property, seems reasonable to break their arms to get it if necessary which of course results in lots of broken arms.

          I’m glad libertarians believe in the golden rule. The thing is socialists and communists don’t, because if you treat them the way they treat you (which would be assuming they are following the golden rule, and want to be treated as they treat others), they’ll kill you if you don’t kill them first.

          Seems to me, one should only steal that book in defense of looting, if you’re going to follow the author’s advice. Somehow, I don’t think she’d approve. LOL

      2. Sounds like a rx for living by fang and claw; these people are totally insane.

      3. “I *need* that 56 inch flatscreen TV, so I will break down this window, set fire to the store, and take it.”

  5. A little late to the party there Reason.

  6. There Is No Defense for Looting

    What is the “Korean defense”, chopped liver?

    1. My 8th level roof Korean shoots at the street LARPers with a +1 rifle of terror.

      1. *lmao*

        “I cast 30 cal! I cast 30 cal again!”

      2. “My 8th level roof Korean shoots at the street LARPers with a +1 rifle of terror.”

        Except that if it happened in Portland today, they’d probably charge him with attempted murder. And the mayor would characterize the rioters as the “true” victims in the story.

        1. Yeah, but where would they find a cop, so that he could be arrested? Somehow, I don’t think their social workers would be up to the job.

    2. That’s one of the best defenses against looters. These crazies have just gone so far to the left that they gape in horror at the idea of someone defending their own property.

  7. NPR LMFAO

    Government media. Why do we have them again?

    1. After decades of being a faithful listener, I cut off NPR totally as their reached the intolerable level.

      1. I still listen to them from time to time, as I like to get different sources for news and how it is perceived. NPR has gone full Critical Race Theory.

        1. NPR has gone full Pravda

          FIFY.

  8. ” But why didn’t the interviewer ask any tough questions?”

    Because the media is not the 4th estate any more. That ship has sailed. Almost exclusively, the media view themselves as the propaganda arm of the DNC. Some might view things the other way around, that they are the brains of the operation and the DNC follows their lead… but either way, they do not see their function as “getting the story” or “speaking truth to power” or even “all the news that’s fit to print”. The function is to ensure that everyone is on the same page. DNC good. RNC bad. Everyone else, insane.

    This has been obvious for some time now, but current events really bring it into focus. Showing me video of buildings burning and calling it “mostly peaceful”. Showing me black-clad Antifa kids painting Antifa slogans on smashed police cars and looted out storefronts while telling me that Antifa is a myth and all of the damage is being caused by white supremacist boogaloo brothers…

    It is as if the press realized during Obama that they just don’t even have to pretend. Obama never answered a tough question in his career (except for Joe the plumber… and the media responded to that example with deep-dive exposee’s explaining why he should be discredited). Obama fairly openly flaunted the constitution. He invaded countries, overthrew governments, invited millions to come to the US illegally so they could be exploited in a quasi-legal status…. basically, he was everything they pretend to be opposed to. And they didn’t even question it. Well, Rachel Maddow did for about 15 minutes one show when her anti-war gene accidentally kicked in. She apparently got slapped down hard, because she never made that mistake again. And that’s a pundit!

    Everyone else? Nope.

    We have, what, one guy covering the political story of the century – the attempt by an outgoing administration to sabotage the incoming administration?

    Biden’s last press conference made Obama’s kid glove treatment look positively violent by comparison. They were not just following the script handed to them by the campaign (literally), they were helping write it.

    NPR told me “now is not the time for you to speak. Now is the time for you to listen. And now is the time for you to act.. to be actively ‘anti racist’ and do whatever BLM tells you to do in order to atone for your sins.” That was a couple of months ago.

    They do not view themselves as “The press”. They are “the voice of the people.” And by people, they mean the DNC/Progressive alliance.

    1. While I agree that the press does not ask enough tough questions that is true across the board. I have seen far too many Republicans allowed to weasel out without tough questions. Especially lately when their answer to what about a headline report is I have not heard about that at all. Yes, I think Joe Biden should do a Fox interview, but I also think President Trump should do one on MSNBC.

      1. I remember when the R’s unironically called Trump the Messiah.

        Oh wait that wasn’t Trump.

      2. Trump has been on NBC news more than all of the DNC candidates combined. And they shill for the DNC.

        He was on the Today show regularly throughout the 2016 campaign. They thought they were lampooning him… hitting him with “gotcha” questions one after the other.

        He did the “politician’s turn” one better. Usually the game is to answer the question you want to answer when asked a tough question. The tacit agreement is that a political reporter does not then go “Hey, that was a complete dodge”… although they will do that occasionally. Trump’s “one better” is to gloss the whole thing over with platitudes … irrelevant ones at that. “It will be beautiful.. The best… you’ll see…” You can’t even argue with it… it is less than nothing.

        Somehow that worked. I still don’t understand it. But it worked.

        If you think “Trump doesn’t face tough questioning”, you just have not been watching. I double dog dare you to watch a full Trump press conference (pick any one) and a full Biden press conference (pick any one from the last 2 months.. Ok, you have one to choose from).

        Trump questions go like “Don’t you feel ashamed for having murdered a million Americans?” (not really an exaggeration)

        Biden questions go like “Trump was quite evil in killing millions of Americans. He has shown no remorse. What do you think that says about his soul?”

        (not really an exaggeration either)

        1. And even with that, Biden has been reading the answers to prepared and seeded questions off of a teleprompter.

          That the reporters present do not report on that fact and play along with the charade should tell you something.

          1. The biden advisor on fox yesterday was embarrassing.

            1. That was one hell of an end run to avoid saying the Biden’s using a teleprompter.

              1. Worse, not even capable of using the teleprompter properly any more.

                “End of quote.”

          2. ^So much this^

            Trump lambasted for using a handrail to leave the stage at a military parade. His take “I told the seargent at arms the walkway and my shoes were slick and he told me to take his arm. I told him I can’t look weak.”

            Biden pulls a Roosevelt and does QnA seated from a waist-high podium, *consistently* has his wife at his elbow, and takes even normal stairs one footstep at a time. Everybody looks the other way.

            I don’t think they’re going to be able to stage the debates hard enough.

            1. Fortunately the debates will be virtual, so Biden can have an army of advisers typing up the responses for him off camera.

              1. Fortunately, his handlers are out of touch with the people, so his answers will still be ludicrous.
                Not to mention the delay while he waits for the teleprompter feed. Trump should have someone with one of those two-way stopclocks used in chess tournaments, showing the relative delay between the answers being given.

      3. Trump regularly holds press meetings taking questions from all outlets, even rapidly leftist ones.
        This has been the norm during an administration that is vastly more transparent then the one before.

        But….the media has stopped showing his press conferences, because they put him in too good of a light. Once he got the better of Acosta, and got the better of a few others after that, they stopped reporting on them. Trump personally handles more direct questions from hostile media in on press conferences then Biden has handled in a year of campaigning.

        1. More than just “stopped showing them”. They explicitly and publicly said that they were not going to show them live because they did not want him to get the publicity. They openly conspired as a group as well – pledging not to cover his press conferences in a nakedly partisan act.

          Meanwhile, CNN has Cuomo on nightly to do a song and dance about how he is the greatest governor in history and if only we had done things his way, nobody would have ever caught a single case of covid-19.

      4. Are you clergy?

      5. He did an interview with Bernstein…What did that get him? That’s right!!! Yet another hatchet job.

    2. In other words, the media was downplaying the riots.

      1. Downplaying riots? What riots? That’s a myth.

        1. The riots caused by Trump, either through his divisiveness or the right wing secret agent white supremacists he empowered, that just started a few weeks ago and were impossible to notice before then

        2. I know, right? Those Qanon kooks are really getting out of control.

          1. That’s really funny.

            Qanon actually does get more coverage than Antifa. That’s impressive.

    3. Cyto, we might want the “press” to be confrontational and challenge information and opinions. But the twenty-somethings (and maybe the thirty-somethings) of modern America are products of an education system that actively removed confrontation from the curriculum. These young people are either unaware of or detest the concept of challenging another human. They were raised in an environment of ideological conformity, and when they are with comrades will only agree and applaud.

      1. That is a good take…. But the problem is not that the media is afraid of confrontation. The problem is that they view their role as confronting Republicans and supporting democrats.

        Their role should be as comminacators. They should important stories and tell them as true to reality as possible. They should look dispassionately at the facts while passionately pursuing their story.

        Almost nobody is doing that. And the country is worse for it.

        1. It’s TDS. They think Trump is Hitler, and it’s their duty to oppose him, rather than reporting on the facts and letting viewers reach teir own conclusions.

          1. While true, this also reverses cause and effect. They were already fully this creature during the 2008 campaign.

            They think Trump is Hitler because they are carrying the DNC water… Not the other way around.

            Believing trump to be a nazi or dictator is insane. Way more insane than Qanon. Believing Trump to be a buffoon would have been reasonable. But they went straight to dictator…. Projection?

          2. Their loathing of Trump has made it more open, but they have been hostile to the GOP for decades. Trump not being a normal gladhanding politician comfortably from the elite class meant they felt able to do away with all pretense.

    4. “Because the media is not the 4th estate any more.”

      The “4th estate” is and always has been a lie.

      1. It’s way past time to have an estate sale.

  9. “Modern-day leftists have no understanding of how society builds wealth and prosperity”

    The rioting “useful idiots” have no understanding. But their backers/instigators know exactly what they are doing and they are being directed with a purpose. Small businesses represent the livelihoods of a lot of right-leaning people. Wealth and opportunity creators who will vote against higher taxes, employer-funding kickbacks, minimum wage mandates, and other confiscatory lefty programs.
    Covid lockdowns in blue states have disproportionately targetted small businesses, while chain stores, whose corporate offices lean left have been left running.
    Then, riots tear down what’s left in urban commercial areas. I would love to see statistics on the relative rates of looting/arson of small versus chain stores. Anecdotally, it seems to target the small family businesses more often then not.

    If the media wasn’t fully on board with this, they would be running a lot more stories about the shop owners who have had their lives destroyed. It is despicable.

    1. That final sentence is how you know this isn’t an accident, or just an oversight.

      The “human interest story” is the bread and butter of TV news, local and national. Add in indiscriminate violence, and you have an irresistible lure.

      There are stories everywhere telling of the pain of Jacob Blake. How wonderful his family is (thanks Kamala! That’s leadership!). He is being beatified right before our eyes. Nobody in the press bothers to mention that he was an accused rapist who had returned to the scene of the crime against a protective order … which explains why his alleged victim called the police to come arrest him on that outstanding warrant. No… that job is left to political pundits and fringe websites (even more fringe than Reason, it would seem).

      Meanwhile, not a single story about the poor black family who put everything they had into a small business… only to have it wiped out by 20-something year old white Antifa types supporting BLM. That’s a human interest story that demands air time. That is dog bites man. And it is everywhere these days. And nobody covers it.

      You have to go to offbeat websites filled with disreputable people to get those sorts of stories. That’s not just odd. That’s incredible. In this moment – with this ethos of “everything is about the oppressive nature of the USA against black people” – to ignore the human interest story of people who have been burned out… even killed because they wanted to have a business and not allow BLM protesters burn it down….. it beggars belief.

      Unless you view everything through the lens of DNC/progressive politics.

      Which the press clearly does, in a very uniform manner.

      1. Here is the NYT “down the middle” summary of Jacob Blake’s shooting.
        https://www.nytimes.com/article/jacob-blake-shooting-kenosha.html

        They include way more facts than most.

        But wow. This is one slanted article.

        They mention video. And they mention that a “Police union” says that Blake fought with police. But they don’t mention that there is video that clearly shows Blake doing exactly what the “police union claims”.

        They mention allegations of sexual assault and “showing up at her home”, but not the further allegations from that day. And they say those allegations are refuted by Blake’s family, who say he was merely breaking up a fight. And police claims about a knife are refuted by Blake’s family, who say “Nuh-uh. He didn’t have a knife”. How they know this is beyond me.. since none of the “family” they are quoting was present.

        It even gets political at the end. It briefly mentions Trump’s visit. It only mentions that he talked with law enforcement officials and called for a crackdown on violence. It spends equal time mentioning that he did not meet with Blake’s family. It does not mention that he spent the bulk of his trip meeting with business owners and residents affected by the riots.

        Then it mentions Biden, at more length. It says that he showed sympathy toward protesters and Black voters – literally transcribing the campaign talking point. It says he hosted a listening session with activists, elected officials, clergymen… and it goes out of the way to say “a few law enforcement officers”. The entire gaggle of folks he met with was smaller than the press contingent. So mentioning that it was “a few” really must be emphasizing how small that contingent was.

        This is their “unbiased” version of reality. This is the “no spin, just the facts” summary.

        And it is less biased than most of their coverage, I’ll give them that. But it is not at all fair, even-handed or unbiased.

        1. That article even reports “His grandfather, also named Jacob Blake, was a pastor at an A.M.E. church and a civil-rights leader in Evanston, The Tribune reported.”

          It reports nothing about his alleged victim. The other woman. Their version of “breaking up the fight”. The reasons for resisting arrest. The actual physical evidence – the existence of a knife. What about his kids? They keep saying he’s a devoted family man…. but that seems to be contradicted by kids living in a home where he’s barred from being present.

          But we get a nice blurb about a two-generations earlier ancestor who was a pastor and civil rights leader. How much, we don’t know. Of what relevance that is to this story, we don’t know. But he is clearly covered in the aura of goodness provided by the ancestral link.

          That you devote more ink to the story of a generations removed relative who has no role in the story than you do to the victim of the sexual assault that is at the center of the story is kind of a tell.

          1. The “human interest” angle is always a tell. It lets you know which side they have chosen to place in the privileged position.

          2. Hell, Cyto, he’s such a devoted family man that he kept raping their mother. He must have wanted more kids! That’s some serious devotion. What a wonderful, saintly, dedicated man.

        2. Harris visiting Blake was another mistake in a campaign consisting mostly of mistakes. Biden’s first campaign ad promised a national mask mandate. Then Harris said, nah, they wouldn’t enforce that, they just want to set an example. Then Biden criticized wanton violence, because 3 months of endorsing wanton violence and bailing out violent felons was bad for winning voter support, it turned out. Now Biden is promising to tax the 401K contributions of middle class people, after pledging not to raise taxes on people making under 400K. It’s like he’s trying to lose.

    2. Anecdotally, it seems to target the small family businesses more often then not.

      Well, logically, there are a lot more tiny businesses than there are giant box stores. But it would be interesting to see statistics on dollar values of damages, separated between “companies with three or fewer locations” and “national chains”. (Yes, I realize that leaves a potential gap, and I’m not particularly attached to the “three”, but you get where I’m going with that.) A single WalMart burned completely to the ground would be the property equivalent of multiple small businesses. Obviously not in terms of emotional or personal impact to an individual, since I doubt the Walton family is going to shed many tears over the loss of any given WalMart, whereas an independent owner is likely to be devastated.

      1. Some national chains are going to pull out of areas prone to looting, permanently, and small businesses are never coming back. And then in a few years there will be a big wailing and gnashing of teeth over how those areas are “under served” and how banks don’t invest in small businesses there (because all the small business owners were forced out).

        1. Haha. Good point. The never ending cycle of “everything is so terrible and unfair” will come full circle in these “under served” urban wastelands. They reap what they sow.

          And then complain.

  10. My oldest daughter is getting to the teenage years where her life of comfort is now running head long into the hard realities that there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. And being a smart kid, she is trying her best to find alternatives to that reality. Fortunately, at an early age, this was my constant mantra:

    Death is the default condition. You will die in the wilderness, cold, sick and hungry unless one of two things happens: 1) you get up and work to clothe, shelter, feed and care for yourself or 2) someone decides to do that work on your behalf. And any person who does help you rather than working to help themselves deserves to be appreciated for their charity or compensated for that work.

    This basic principle is the starting point for every single conversation that we have when she starts complaining about the unfairness of the system.

    1. My daughters are both adults and have matured into responsible people who provide for themselves; but nonetheless I am going to save that exhortation; damned good!

  11. A couple of sniper towers, some concertina and a few land mines, then shotguns and flamethrowers.

    1. I like the way you think.
      Kyle showed is the way.
      This will be the way the government responds to the post election riots after DJT wins in a landslide

      1. If I were on my death bed, your post would inspire to hang on like Ginsberg!

    2. I think SAWs and MG3s would be more effective.

    3. A civil war hand cranked Gattling gun, and modern takes there on as long as they are still hand cranked are not machine guns under federal law.

      Gattling Shotgun.

      1. I recently installed a binary trigger on my AR [sure you can buy a parts kit for about a $100 and convert to burst and full auto, but don’t get caught with it]; not genuinely auto but it works and a hell of a lot easier to carry than a 600# Gat.

        1. Yeah, but does it have the street clearing power of an 8 barrel 12-gauge Gattling shotgun. 🙂

    4. Too much resource expenditure.

      A wall. Concertina.

      Cut off power, water and food into the area.

      Self-solving problem.

      1. Hard to level just turtling

  12. I have to agree that Vicky Osterweil’s arguments are ludacris. Having said that we should not forget that looting and the destruction of property is not uncommon. One of our most revered moment of history is the Boston Tea Party. Our history is filled with examples of rioting. The workers at factories, white mobs burning down black section of towns all occurred in this country. Like so many times in history we will have to get through this period. Most of the rioting is self limiting. We should condemn the rioting but not allow it to be all consuming in our thoughts. I also think that getting community leaders out fast is far better than police at addressing rioting and looting.

    1. Leave Ludacris out of this.

      don’t make him “take it out on you”

    2. Getting the truth out fast would probably help.

      A little perspective.

      “Hands up, don’t shoot” sparked a movement. People were outraged that a “Gentle Giant” would be murdered with his hands in the air for absolutely no reason by a racist cop.

      As the BLM team was forming in Ferguson, the Obama justice department came to town. They were determined to ensure that justice was done and racist police held accountable.

      They learned that “hands up, don’t shoot” did not happen within 24 hours. They knew that the gun was discharged in a struggle inside the vehicle, wounding Brown’s hand and getting his blood inside the driver’s door -which was also damaged. They knew that an eyewitness told of this and of Brown charging at the officer when he was shot. They knew that Brown had committed a strong arm robbery just a few minutes earlier.

      Yet they said nothing.

      Protests took to the interstate.

      Yet they said nothing.

      Buildings were looted.

      Yet they said nothing.

      Buildings were burned.

      Yet they said nothing.

      Gangs of youth began rioting across the country, demanding justice based on the lie of “hands up, don’t shoot.” More buildings burned.

      Yet they said nothing.

      For weeks. They said nothing.

      They knew the entire time. One speech from Obama explaining the truth would have stopped all of it. But the Obama DOJ ordered everyone to stay silent about the case. They demanded that local police and prosecutors stay silent – don’t jeopardize an ongoing investigation!

      Now, you can pretend that this was not intentional. You can pretend that they sat on the knowledge that it was all a lie as racial tensions bloomed and cities were wracked by riot, looting and burning of businesses simply as a matter of due course… wanting to dot every “i” and cross every “t”.

      But I don’t believe it. Not for a second.

      How long did it take to charge police in these cases. Hours?

      Yet they could not come out with a statement contradicting the narrative. And at the same time, the various nonprofit organizations involved in the rioting and protests were closely associated with Obama and his supporters?

      Yeah…. sure.

      1. Everything Cyto says is made even more infuriating by the fact that this is all done to stoke racial tensions and collectivist grievance mongering by the media and the political class that has no intention of ever channeling the energy from it into actually doing something that will help the people who suffer under the boot of the state. They swing for the fences with “defund the police” which is so obviously a loosing message on it’s face that its laughable. Meanwhile the ONLY member of congress who has drafted any legislation that might address the stated concerns of the mob, himself gets mobbed.

        What has the media and the political class actually even attempted to deliver to the people who want change? They let them pull down statues indiscriminately, steal some $2000 handbags and put videos in front of “Gone with the Wind” to make sure to tell the 18 NPR-donating white people who still actually give a shit about watching it that Mammy wasn’t treated so well in real life.

        Does any of this help prevent the next person from getting killed by a cop who thinks that he’s judge, jury and executioner? Does any of this help any of the kids living in fear from record high murder rates in the Chicago projects right now? Does any of this help Kendi, D’Angelo, Sharpton ect…..?

    3. “Most of the rioting is self limiting.”

      The burning forests of California, Oregon, and Washington beg to differ

      1. Those fires are self limiting.

        Once all the fuel is consumed, the fire will go out.

    4. Ensuring nobody was hurt and dumping tea in a bay in response to a tax on tea is totally the same as stealing a high def t.v. from a target in response to the cops.

    5. While the Boston Tea Party was a bunch of terrorists (not a mob, as it was carefully orchestrated), note that the goal was targeted to the item of wrath: the East India Company royal monopoly and privileges. The Boston Tea Party did NOT loot and burn down Bostonian homes and businesses.

      1. This. They were attacking a government adjacent organization.

        1. Proggies love to live in the past, and mod can’t even get that right.

          Sad.

      2. They also didn’t take anything for personal profit. One of the raiders was seen putting tea into his pockets, and was immediately thrown into the harbor.

      3. They also limited the damage to the ships to breaking into the holds.

        -jcr

    6. Well the community leaders in Portland and Seattle did a bang up job.

  13. I believe there is a legitimate defense of “looting”, with one example being the original Boston Tea Party. In that situation, however, “looting” involved free people protecting their own right to have some representation in the authoritative body that taxed them, and they directed their protest at the object of their oppression–both in terms of the tea that was to be taxed and in terms of the owner of the tea. The purpose of the tea tax was to bail out the East India Company–so by “looting” the East India Company’s tea, they were not only protesting against a tax with no legitimate authority (no taxation without representation) but also striking back directly at the very rent seekers who initiated that tax against them.

    The looting we’ve seen in recent weeks does not resemble the Boston Tea Party in any way that matters. The colonists who rebelled against the the Tea Act of 1773 had no representation in the government that taxed them, but the people who have looted Chicago, Kenosha, Minneapolis, Portland, New York City, Seattle and elsewhere in recent weeks have no such issue. They are free to participate in elections at the national, state, county, and municipal level–the authorities that protect the police from accountability in these cities are the authorities they elected, and they can remove them in the next election if they choose. If they decide to keep their politicians in place after this, it’s their own fault.

    The other important way the looting we’ve seen in recent weeks doesn’t resemble the Boston Tea Party is that the victims of their looting aren’t the people who are responsible for violating their rights. Targeting the East India Company turned the Boston Tea Party into something like an act of self-defense–they targeted the people who were oppressing them. The business owners of Chicago, Kenosha, Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle, and elsewhere did not kneel on anybody’s neck until he stopped breathing. They didn’t shoot anyone in the back seven times. They did no perpetrate a no-knock raid. There is no self-defense justification for targeting people who did you no harm.

    If the colonists who participated in the Boston Tea Party had gone down main street and looted all the retail shops along the way, they wouldn’t have had a legitimate leg to stand on–and that’s what the looters have done in recent weeks. The legitimate purpose of government is to protect our rights, and if the Boston Tea Party was justified, it’s because the colonists were subjected to an illegitimate authority that was violating their rights and directed their act of self-defense at the East India Company that was responsible for that injustice. The looters of recent weeks are protesting against a legitimate authority that is subject to their votes, and the people they’re attacking are not the ones who violated theirs or anyone else’s rights. In fact, using the government to protect people’s rights from these looters would be the legitimate act of a legitimate government.

    1. Look, those people trying to have a meal at an unrelated location are just as guilty as the police. “This party is over!!”

    2. The colonists who rebelled against the the Tea Act of 1773 had no representation in the government that taxed them, but the people who have looted Chicago, Kenosha, Minneapolis, Portland, New York City, Seattle and elsewhere in recent weeks have no such issue. They are free to participate in elections at the national, state, county, and municipal level–the authorities that protect the police from accountability in these cities are the authorities they elected, and they can remove them in the next election if they choose. If they decide to keep their politicians in place after this, it’s their own fault.

      The only even slight balancing counter to this that I can come up with is that a third of black men have felony convictions, and therefore don’t actually have much say in who gets elected.

      Not that I think this excuses the rioting and looting.

      1. Especially when most of the rioters are Lilly white.

        1. OK, there’s that too.

  14. It’s simply mind-blowing to me that, in the year 2020, in the largest developed country in the world, we actually have to publish articles like this one. I consider myself a pretty open minded person on most issues, and I do support common-sense proposals for introducing more accountability in policing, but the insane rhetoric of the topic of police violence and the level of dishonesty and stupidity in the mainstream dialogue has honestly made me lose pretty much all hope at this point. I used to think Conservative complaints about liberal bias in the mainstream media were overblown; I sure as hell don’t hold this opinion any longer.

  15. STAY HOME AND STARTING WORK AT HOME EASILY… MORE AND MORE EARNING DAILY BY JUST FOLLOW THESE STEPS, I am a student and i work daily on this site and earn money..HERE? <a HERE? Read More

  16. “I believe there is a legitimate defense of “looting””

    That is nonsense.

    The Boston Tea Party was an act of war, of terrorism. In its simplistic sense, yes, looting, but in the bigger context, a prelude to war. The perpetrators, if caught, would have hung.

    The looting now is one of two things. either it is lawless theft, in which case the perpetrators should be tried and sentenced accordingly, or it is an act of war, of terrorism on civil society, and the perpetrators should hang as traitors. I believe there are aspects of both in this. But there is zero justification unless you are rooting for the other side.

    1. Can’t use the word “hang” unless you want to be cancelled.

    2. That is an excellent distinction.

      Today “the power class” is encouraging looting and rioting by pledging not to intervene, not to arrest and not to prosecute those who are arrested.

    3. The Boston Tea Party was an act of war, of terrorism. In its simplistic sense, yes, looting

      Why are you conceding this? It is idiotic. It was a tax revolt. And it absolutely was not looting, they didn’t steal the tea.

      If you give shitstains like M4E a inch, they will take off your head. They are bent on revolution, but it won’t end up like the American one, it will be more like the French, with a lot of dead people who thought they were smarter than the rest.

      1. Well they did steal it, they just threw it in the harbor immediately instead of using it for their own gain.

        There was also the minor detail that American colonists had no way to address grievances with their British overlords. They had no representation in Parliament, that was their whole problem. They didn’t like the taxes, but they REALLY didn’t like that they had no one to argue on their behalf when the subject came up. Had the crown just given the colonies a seat or two in Parliament there’s a real chance the American revolution doesn’t happen; at least not at the time that it did.

        Our current day looters have lots of ways to address grievances with their government. They don’t want to do that though, they want to burn shit down. These people aren’t even on the same moral continent as the Tea Party guys.

        1. Our current day looters have lots of ways to address grievances with their government. They don’t want to do that though, they want to burn shit down. These people aren’t even on the same moral continent as the Tea Party guys.

          Ding, ding ding! We have a winner!

      2. they didn’t steal the tea.

        So, if I go to your house and throw all your stuff out in the yard and smash it, I didn’t steal your stuff?

        1. There will be a laundry list of charges brought against you, but theft will not be among them.

          Theft involves converting my property to your own.

          1. Hmm. I’m not so sure, but you may know better than I.

          2. Theft is merely depriving someone else of the use of their property. What they do with it after depriving you of it makes little difference.

            1. Theft is merely depriving someone else of the use of their property.

              Wrong.

              https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/theft#:~:text=The%20generic%20term%20for%20all,use%20(including%20potential%20sale).

              “The generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker’s use (including potential sale).

              1. For the taker’s use. If my use is to throw it into the harbor to prove a point I’m still taking it for my own use.

                My point stands, what they do with your property after taking it is irrelevant as it relates to “theft”. All they have to do is take it.

                1. Where did they “take it”?

                2. You actually had a point earlier that you have abandoned in a quest to be ‘not wrong’ about stealing.

                  There was also the minor detail that American colonists had no way to address grievances with their British overlords…. Our current day looters have lots of ways to address grievances with their government.

                  Can we get back to that?

            2. What they do with it after depriving you of it makes little difference.

              I can’t help myself. This is so wrong.

              If I turn around in your driveway and run over your bike while doing so, you are deprived of the use of the bike, yet I didn’t ‘steal’ your bike. The Sons of Liberty did not ‘steal’ the tea.

        2. So, if I go to your house and throw all your stuff out in the yard and smash it, I didn’t steal your stuff?

          No, you didn’t. You destroyed it, which is a different crime.

          1. They first stole it and then destroyed it, which is 2 crimes.

            1. But they didn’t steal it. It never left the owner’s property.

            2. You seem to be under the impression that simply picking something up that doesn’t belong to you constitutes theft.

              1. It is if the person who owns it doesn’t want you to do it. They cannot use their property while you’re possessing it against their will, how is that not theft?

                It may be a very minor case of theft that can be easily resolved without much conflict, but “well I didn’t leave with it” doesn’t count for much. Shoplifters get charged for merely stuffing stuff down their pants without leaving the store all the time.

                1. It is if the person who owns it doesn’t want you to do it.

                  No, it isn’t. I challenge you to find a single legal definition of theft that would apply to someone who simply picked up an object without the owner’s permission.

                  They cannot use their property while you’re possessing it against their will, how is that not theft?

                  Circular argument much? You’re trying to claim that simply depriving someone of the use of something they own because you’re in possession of it without permission constitutes theft by asking how it cannot be theft. You’re asserting that if someone simply picks up an object in my home that I’d prefer that people not handle (say, a delicate and valuable antique of some sort) they’ve committed theft. If you’re not capable of understanding how absurd that is then I can’t help you .

            3. Sigh. You are being deliberately obtuse. ‘Stealing’ most definitely connotes intent to possess (or sell), which is what the legal definition recognizes, but that is completely beside the point.

              The Boston Tea Party did not involve looting or rioting. It was planned and executed in secrecy with the sole intent being to destroy the tea in defiance of the EITC who had petitioned for the waiver of tax which the Crown granted them. No persons were harmed, and the boats were not burned. The fact that they actually had to carry the tea out of the holds to throw it in does constitute ‘looting’.

              The Tea Party was virtually the opposite of people roaming the streets looking for opportunities to steal, smash or burn.

  17. “Looting is great, until you run out of other people’s stuff to steal.”
    -Margaret Thatcher

  18. “”Why can’t everything be free?” I explained that if everything were free, no one would work or produce anything or invest in factories and stores. In almost no time, we’d be staring down vast shortages—and people would go hungry.”

    I use an operating system called Linux. It is free. It was created by people freely donating their time and effort to the project. It’s been around for decades and nobody has gone hungry on account of it. Technology is disruptive. Greenhut has cherished notions that economic activity relies on scarcity, even artificially imposed scarcity. He should reconsider them.

    There is a defense for looting. Insurrections and attacks on the state are often kicked off by a spell of looting. Looting is an excellent way for the working class to show their displeasure with consumerism and the ruling class. Greenhut is correct to decry the wanton destruction of small businesses. Looting targets should be restricted to gun and liquor stores, symbolic targets like police cars, and government buildings.

    Looting though is only a temporary solution. It becomes counterproductive unless it is replaced by other tactics which require more discipline and solidarity.

    1. Yup. Linux is great. The vast majority of the hard stuff was written by companies who wanted to make money, either directly or indirectly. IBM was the single biggest contributor for most of the run.

      Try the same thing with TV sets. Or shoes. Or even toothpicks.

      It doesn’t really work the same, does it.

      So this isn’t even the exception that proves the rule.

      Software is something that you can keep and give away at the same time. So is music. And literature. And even in those cases, people like to get paid for their work.

      But Intellectual Property is hardly the definitive example.

      Somehow I doubt that you would show up and work for me for 60 hours per week, without pay, regardless of the task assigned.

      1. ” IBM was the single biggest contributor for most of the run. ”

        Companies are people too.

        “It doesn’t really work the same, does it. ”

        Because not all products are the same. Computer software is noteworthy for the ability to make perfect reproductions at next to no cost. Advocates for artificial scarcity like Greenhut can be counted on to resist the implications of this marvelous potential, even denying it.

        “Somehow I doubt that you would show up and work for me for 60 hours per week, without pay, regardless of the task assigned.”

        A 60 hour work week is a lot to ask of someone, no matter what you pay them. Apparently more and more people are making longer and longer commutes. This contributes to the GDP, to be sure, but only very rarely does the worker get paid for being stuck in traffic. Pay is not the only way to get people to do things.

        1. As I used to say… “I would do this even if you didn’t pay me…… I wouldn’t do it here… But I would still do it”

          Nobody is coming over to scrub your toilets for free. Nobody is going to raise cattle, slaughter them and make you a hamburger for free.

          If you think differently, go back and watch Stossel from 30 years ago. He has some excellent pieces explaining why capitalism is a virtue.

          I volunteer hundreds of hours per year. I do jobs that people can’t pay me to do. That doesn’t mean you can efficiently run a society that way.

          1. “Nobody is coming over to scrub your toilets for free. ”

            A Christian might. Christ made a point of washing the feet of his followers without any thought of monetary compensation. For Him, it was a sign of humility. Christians today continue to voluntarily serve the poor. You may chide them for their lack of efficiency, but they are storing up treasures in heaven in their eyes.

            1. No… A christian might help out a neighbor in need.

              Nobody is going to be your maid just because you want a maid and don’t want to pay for it.

              Nobody is taking your sewage to be treated for free. Nobody is refining tons of iron ore to make steel for your car for free. Nobody is risking life and limb in a coal mine to get the coal for refining bauxite into aluminum for your windows for free.

              One person will bring you a meal in time of need for free. An army of people are not going to work to feed you forever for free. Not voluntarily, anyway.

              1. I personally volunteer a dozen or more hours a week at church.

                We also help people. Part of that is discussing cases where it is not helping to give people stuff. I have been taken advantage of… It goes with the territory. We spent quite a bit of time and money helping out a poor family with 4 kids. After a year, it became apparent that the mom was just scamming everyone. So we all agreed to cut her off. They moved out of state and found another church to scam.

                It happens.

                But nobody is going to simply take care of random people who simply don’t want to do it for themselves. Not for very long.

                1. ” I have been taken advantage of…”

                  This is negative thinking. Scamming part of being human. Your generosity is not diminished by the actions of the receiver. Keep your faith in people and don’t let yourself succumb to cynicism.

                  1. We go in eyes wide open.

                    Before the family took advantage, we talked about it among ourselves. I said it had no better than a 50/50 shot at working.

                    I said “we do the right thing because it is the right thing to do”. I say that a lot.

                    So we twisted some arms and found her a job. A modest job, but a job with a future. She was actually doing pretty good at the job.

                    We got her a van. And an apartment.

                    The apartment didn’t go well. They got kicked out.

                    Another church member stepped up and let her rent out a house for far below market rates.

                    When they left, she skipped town without paying 3 months rent and didn’t give notice that she was leaving.

                    I bought her kids clothes and took them in when she needed a sitter. I ferried them to church and basketball practice where I coached.

                    She wandered in and out of drugs. Eventually took off without even a thank you.

                    I probably spent 3 grand. Others spent a lot more. We took a chance to save a family. Some folks were pretty mad. I was sanguine. I had predicted no better than 50/50 when we started. She actually did better than I thought she would, keeping her job for most of a year. In the end, she “fell” at work and got a worker’s comp settlement (screwing over the guy who took a chance to hire her), skipped out on her rent (but took the van with her) and didn’t even bother to let anyone know where she was going. Then we learned that she cut everyone off because she found another church in another state to take care of her for a while.

                    I’m not cynical.

                    But resources are limited. There’s only so much charity to go around.

                    We have definitely been taken advantage of.

                    We worked with a local homeless/halfway house. “what do you need?” Most of the guys are not allowed to drive and don’t have transportation. Bicycles and backpacks. So we got them about a hundred bicycles and backpacks.

                    Next thing you know, my neighborhood is inundated with homeless dudes on bicycles with backpacks, looking for something to steal. Dang! No good deed….

                    1. It’s a little paradoxical but scammers like her seem to put enormous efforts and thought into their schemes. It’s not like they are lazy and shiftless. It’s almost like work. As I understand enlisting on the welfare rolls is similarly demanding, with endless paper work and a lot of going through the motions with meaningless and tiresome busy work.

              2. “Nobody is going to be your maid just because you want a maid and don’t want to pay for it. ”

                The world is an awfully big place, Cyto. People become maids for all sorts of reasons, some doubtless inconceivable to you.

                “An army of people are not going to work to feed you forever for free.”

                The Japanese have a saying which I will translate for you:
                Free is the most expensive.

                1. There are 7 billion people. There cannot be 7 billion unpaid maids for the 7 billion people.

                  Some will have to do without.

                  How do we decide who?

                  If only there were a system for that.

                  1. “Some will have to do without. ”

                    There’s no excuse for doing without a computer operating system. We can make perfect copies and distribute them at almost no cost. It’s only thanks to a system of government enforced artificial scarcity that keeps software from being ubiquitously available.

    2. Looting is an excellent way for the working class to show their displeasure with consumerism and the ruling class.

      You are worse than the nutjob above who referenced the Boston Tea Party. When you support shit like looting and rioting, people end up dead. The Soviets ended up killing 60 million. The Chinese are at 80 million and still climbing. All you Marxists need to STFU before you stir up a real reaction.

      1. ” people end up dead”

        Because it threatens the ruling regime. If you want to remain unthreatening, there are options. You can vote for one of the geriatrics offered to you, for example. If you want to overturn a corrupt and incompetent regime, risks will have to be taken. They will fight any change.

        1. Reasonable people cannot ally with Marxists against the government. This is one of those times where the ‘enemy of my enemy is my friend’ mantra is exposed for the bullshit that it really is. Once Marxists gain power, they will kill people. Even if there are not death squads, there will be the Green New Deal, colectivization, socialized medicine or other such schemes that stifle innovation, increase poverty, lead to mass starvation and shorten the human lifespan.

          Don’t believe the Chinese propaganda. They do not live longer than Americans on average. Do you seriously think any of the Uighars or the many other political prisoners they have killed are counted? Unpeople don’t get counted. They don’t get counted as incarcerated, they don’t get counted as uneducated, they don’t get counted as dead.

          1. “Reasonable people cannot ally with Marxists against the government. ”

            It happens when people are desperate. Russia 1917, for example. Basically, everyone was a socialist.

            “Once Marxists gain power, they will kill people.”

            That is the case when they gain power through violence. But when they come to power as the result of a majority choice, like elections, the results are more peaceful. Various socialist/Marxist governments have been elected in Canada and the UK without the blood baths you fear. The changes they implement, like socialized medicine are popular and even conservative governments keep these programs in place.

            “Do you seriously think any of the Uighars or the many other political prisoners they have killed are counted?”

            Unless the effort is some extra-judicial rogue operation, sure they’d be counted. Whether the government would make the figures public is another question.

      2. Technically, all people everywhere will end up dead regardless of looting and/or rioting.

        That’s not an excuse for speeding the process up artificially.

    3. Linux is entirely voluntary. 100% the product of free and voluntary association. There is no coercion involved. It’s not socialist in that the producers voluntarily give away their product. And the producers still make money through other means, just not selling the software. They sell services and support, they get paid by huge corporations to maintain the infrastructure they rely on, etc.

      But beyond that, property rights should be about legitimate property. There’s valid arguments to be made that intellectual property is wholly an invention of the state, and possesses no attributes common to other forms of property.

      I should also note that very few Linux developers say all software MUST be free/open. They choose it for themselves, and are not imposing it on others. As such it’s like a mom passing out free cookies she made to all the neighborhood children. She is NOT advocating socialism and the mandated freeing of all cookies. That some corporate lawyer types with sticks up their butts think Linux is socialism merely demonstrates how far up their butts those sticks are.

      1. That must be really uncomfortable to have that stick pressed against the heads that are also up their asses.

      2. Oh crap. Now we are gonna do GPL3 vs BSD vs LGPL vs..,..

      3. “100% the product of free and voluntary association.”

        I wouldn’t say that. Much software is written on the company clock, on stolen time. Much like the comments here at the Reason page.

        ” It’s not socialist in that the producers voluntarily give away their product.”

        Where do you get the idea that socialists don’t volunteer? The Red army that defeated the Nazis were packed with volunteers. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, for example.

        “That some corporate lawyer types with sticks up their butts think Linux is socialism merely demonstrates how far up their butts those sticks are.”

        It’s socialistic, I think. You have people freely working together on a project that doesn’t promise any monetary reward. It’s not the profit motive that drives them, as you would expect in a capitalistic enterprise, but something else.

        1. Are you being sarcastic? Trolling? I really can’t tell.

          1. “I really can’t tell.”

            Because your view of things is so narrow. The idea that voluntary projects like Linux are inimicable to socialism is ridiculous, despite what you think. No less a figure than the founder of the free software movement is Richard Stallman, a total Marxist so total that he even resembles Marx. Karl that is.

            1. You’re seeming to conflate some people doing things without immediate monetary benefit, with socialist collectivism. Those things are worlds apart. That’s why what you seem to be saying is baffling to me. If I’m misunderstanding, please correct me.
              People like Cyto will help people with no reward. People will spend hours creating free apps. You can’t structure a society based on making those self-motivated actions compulsory.

              PS I’ve never seen inimicable before, but it seems to mean hostile, which doesn’t compute in that sentence. Do you mean incomparable?

              1. “You’re seeming to conflate some people doing things without immediate monetary benefit, with socialist collectivism.”

                Yes I am. People working voluntarily together without a profit motive is socialistic. Like the creation of Linux or he early Christian church.

              2. ” Do you mean incomparable?”

                Or incompatible.

                “You can’t structure a society based on making those self-motivated actions compulsory. ”

                Nobody is suggesting that.

        2. Everyone loves a pedant.

  19. looting and the destruction of property is not uncommon. One of our most revered moment of history is the Boston Tea Party

    You sniveling lying piece of shit.

    Even a cursory glance at a history book shows that the BTP was not a riot or looting. The fucking East India Company had a monarch granted monopoly by virtue of a tax waiver that made its tea cheaper than smuggled tea. It was a tax revolt against the monarchy .

    You want to compare that to burning down a Wendy’s or looting a Coach store? Fuck you, you commie shitstain.

    1. Damn the squirrels to hell. And they can take Moderation4ever with them.

    2. Look, some guy passed out in the drive-through line at that Wendy’s. They had it coming.

  20. There are times looting is acceptable and necessary. Starving people stealing food, for example. No one can blame them.

    There are other times where its defensible, as others have said, the Boston Tea Party was effectively looting. however, that was direct destruction of something as a direct response to the act. Breaking into a draft office and burning the draft registry would be similarly defensible.

    However, we aren’t talking about that. We are talking about destroying unrelated buildings and stealing or destroying unrelated items. How does police oppression compute into you stealing a TV from Target or burning down a dentist’s office?

    1. There are a lot of family men in the “underserved partner” category over the age of 35. If this ethos takes hold, the “19 year old woman” demographic should be worried.

    2. There are times looting is acceptable and necessary. Starving people stealing food, for example. No one can blame them.

      What the fuck is wrong with you? No one can blame them? Yes, they most certainly can. When in history have starving people ever stolen food from people who are well fed (and well armed)? No, they end up stealing from other starving people.

      Did anybody actually read 1984? You probably read the fucking Cliff Notes. The main character lives with the guilt of having taken food from his baby brother when they were both starving. Then his brother died. That is what you are justifying here. Damn you.

      1. I mean, it’s not like it’s in the Bible or anything.

        Proverbs 6:30People do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his hunger when he is starving.31Yet if he is caught, he must pay sevenfold, though it costs him all the wealth of his house.

        And the situation I was thinking about were the riots in Paris around the French revolution, or the Irish riots during the potato famine, as the common people were starving while the country was actually exporting food.

        1. Sigh. Way to avoid my point. Who do they steal the food from? Inevitably, other starving people.

          And the quote from Proverbs does not support your point the way you think it does. By all means, don’t despise them, but confiscate sevenfold the cost of what they stole or all the wealth of their house? This from a people that were fed by God for 40 years? From the severity of the punishment, it seems like they are well aware who the food is going to be stolen from and the real social cost. The thief’s life is saved at the expense of another.

    3. the Boston Tea Party was effectively looting

      That clueless claim is no less stupid when you regurgitate it than it was when multiple equally clueless individuals before you did the same.

  21. Not only is there no defense to looting but you might as well be working for the police state when you do shit like that.

    1. Uh… have you listened to the Antifa and BLM folks? What do you think their objective is?

    2. That’s not to say that a violent reaction to injustice isn’t warranted in certain situations but those situations are rare.

      1. Rare these days in the west.

        They used to be near-universal.

        And they still exist in a lot of places. That’s why the governments in those places are really oppressive. Kinda goes hand in hand.

        You know you have lost sight of the ball when your big “oppression” complaint is that the police used unmarked cars to transport arrestees at a riot.

        1. Lawlessness! Only making the situation worse! That’s what dictators do!

      2. A violent reaction to injustice is only warranted in cases where the violent reaction is actually against the people committing the injustice. They should be burning City Hall rather than the corner store.

        “Joey! Don’t punch your little sister, Sally!”

        “But Bobby punched me!”

    3. They are working for certain politicians and certain DAs who work in concert with certain deep-pocket oligarchs and crony-corporatists. Some of the important targets of the looting and terror are small entrepreneurial businesses, the ones most likely to support a police presence in the neighborhood.

      The Intellectual Class gives the justification: If they support police presence to preserve neighborhood peace and order, they must be “fascists” and “racists,” so it’s okay — if not a duty — to fuck up their businesses.

    4. “you might as well be working for the police state when you do shit like that.”

      I seem to recall some voices around here, back when the response turned violent, noting that such violence only serves the interests of those who already in power in the municipalities where the police excesses occurred. Effectively making real change much less likely. As if they wanted it that way all along.

      Yet somehow we were dismissed.

  22. Neo-Marxist tenured ivory-tower White Intellectuals urging Black Americans to burn down their own neighborhoods.

    Neo-progressive DNC leaders praising and giving them cover.

    1. …..until they don’t

  23. Can someone find out Ms. Osterweil’s address, so we can go liberate her stuff, which the apparently liberated from someone else?

    It’s the circle of life.

    1. Don’t indulge this man’s delusions by calling him “Vicky”.

    2. Mr. Osterweil lives in Philly with his girlfriend. He’s smart enough to have scrubbed the internet clean of anything more specific than that.

  24. Antifa and BLM and a bunch of anti-White thugs that support White Genocide. If anti-White ideas are so good, why do they have to be violently forced upon Whites to ensure we don’t object?

  25. With no doubt, the FBI has dossiers on all the regular Antifa/BLM demonstrators and rioters, as well as having planted informers and provocateurs within the groups.

    The ultimate police-statist, Antifa/BLM favorite Kamala Harris, will be Antifa’s worst nightmare in a win.

  26. PANTS UP, DON’T LOOT!

  27. Looting? Where? I get all of my news from Reason, and I haven’t heard of anything like this going on.

  28. Funny headline, Reason has been defending looting as peaceful protests for months.

  29. “There is no defense for looting”

    Shotguns, flamethrowers, claymores…there are lots of defenses.

  30. The author of that book is an idiot who’s never had a real job in her life. Getting paid to write rants against other people is not a job. She’s a spoiled ignorant child, offspring of affluent white progressives, just like the kids white wokes in the matching picture. The most basic of rational thought is beyond her. Marx himself is rolling in his grave at her obtuseness.

    But she’s just the product of the modern university system. She can’t help it if her white aflfuent progressive parents sent her to BF Skinner University to get indoctrinated in bullshit. She’s just a pigeon pecking at the blue dot on command.

    The real shame her is NPR giving her softball platform. Sure it’s fine interviewing her, but giving her outrageous thesis a free pass? Shameful. It’s like giving a toddler on a tantrum a microphone, and then broadcasting it into our radios. Actually, I would rather listen to the screaming toddler.

    1. *his

      Vicky is Willie and a transvestite. Went to Cornell and then took a minimum wage job at a movie theater in NYC.

      1. So what? That’s harmless. Let’s stick to this person’s advocacy of violence and criminality.

        1. This is the mental illness of someone who advocates for violence against property and stealing stuff from other people. “Trans rights,” mental illness, and Marxism are inseparable.

    2. It’s like giving a toddler on a tantrum a microphone, and then broadcasting it into our radios.

      But enough about Portland Antifa…

  31. “But why didn’t the interviewer ask any tough questions?”

    You must be joking. 21st century media are nothing but advocates and outlets for partisan politics. A reporter might ask challenging questions if they disagree with their interviewee, but why would they ever host a person with different viewpoints?

  32. “Modern-day leftists have no understanding of how society builds wealth and prosperity. They revile those who create it, even as they post photos to the Internet from their iPhones. Do they believe such wonderful innovations fell from the sky?”
    Yes. And electricity comes out of the wall, and food comes from the back room at Safeway.

    “Didn’t any of their professors teach them about the violence, starvation, and misery that took place in Soviet Russia—and every other society that attacked the idea of private property?”
    Are you joking? Those professors would first have to learn this for themselves.

  33. Too little too late, reason writers and editors.

    I guess somewhere Koch lost money on something impacted by riots and looting.

  34. There’s only one thing missing from the accompanying photo to complete the irony is . . . rope!

    Or doesn’t the Klan use rope anymore in the execution of “social justice”?

  35. “Vicky” Osterweil used to be Willie Osterweil before tucking his willie and dressing like a girl. He/she/they/it went to Cornell to become the next great novelist and then chose to work for $7.25 an hour at a New York City movie theater and then blamed his/her/their/its situation on capitalism.

    Osterweil is a self-described “queer Jewish anarchist,” and his girlfriend wrote a book titled “Full Surrogacy Now,” which advocates for the abolition of family. This is the mental illness of someone who advocates for violence against property and stealing stuff from other people.

    1. So, a nutjob advocates looting. Why is said nutjob getting any press attention?

      -jcr

  36. Does anyone else find it disturbing how many of these psychotically violent little girls there are? Including the ones with testicles.

  37. Let us not forget the most hilarious part of the book – the copyright notice that reminds you that when Vicky Osterweil defends taking stuff that doesn’t belong to you in the name of re-thinking the whole idea of property, Vicky Osterweil is certainly not talking about taking stuff that belongs to Vicky Osterweil.

    And remember that Vicky Osterweil stole a gender identity so it’s no surprise Vicky Osterweil thinks stealing is just fine.

    1. If “Vicky” Osterweil can’t even figure out if it’s a boy or a girl, I’m pretty sure “thought” has gone out the window. Anybody that takes it’s opinions on anything else seriously, before that dilemma is straightened out, probably shouldn’t be walking the streets unsupervised.
      Anybody else had enough of all the endocrine disruptors in the food supply yet?

  38. Jesus overturned the carts of the money changers in the temple. Just saying.

    1. Because they were in the TEMPLE. Not just for being moneychangers.

    2. You’re a special kind of stupid, aren’t you?

    3. That’s why I’m not a Christian. I don’t abide Jesus and his violent rioting.

      1. Okay, that made me laugh.

      2. He only got away with it because he was white.

  39. Looting is really awful, only the real weirdos support it. I read on the internet that Biden is the ringleader! It seems that black clad jet plane ninja looters are secretly running his campaign! I was gonna vote for that guy too, because the reptilian orange freak is trying to kill my family for living within 200 miles of the beach. Yep, this country has crises multiplying like, well, viruses and we could really use a POTUS. Ninjas are, like, super duper scary though so I’m gonna vote for the Confederate Undersecretary of Nauseating Tantrums to continue with the ongoing abortion of the United States.

    1. When a patient calls and sound like you I tell them to come the the ER.

      Just saying.

      1. As of today, COVID has killed 67 9/11s worth of people. But fuck accountability, because “LOL, nothing matters.”

        1. Yeah, old people dying of natural causes is exactly like mass murder.

          1. If I know a snake is extremely venomous and tell a gullible child to pet it, that’s pretty close to murder. That’s what Trump did to his base.

            1. The real question is how he got Cuomo to do his bidding.

              1. I promise not to write in cuomos name

          2. Is it a death from natural causes when they were deliberately infected by Cuomo’s minions?

            -jcr

        2. It’s sad that so many people have died.
          However, trying to pin all those deaths on any person isn’t going to work very well. Once it arrived on this shore, we suddenly have a million different opinions about how we should react.

          You happen to be on a Libertarian website, so you’re not likely to find people that will agree the President is responsible. Most would say the CDC,FDA,WHO, etc. don’t justify their own cost as it is.

        3. COVID has killed 67 9/11s worth of people.

          Coming to a libertarian website to bitch that there was a massive overreaction to 9/11 is most definitely preaching to the choir.

          Now, name a single thing that could have been done differently to prevent the spread of COVID.

          1. Succinctly, South Korea.

            1. So why didn’t any of the Democrat-controlled cities and states where the overwhelming vast majority of the deaths have occurred implement any of those measures…instead of urging their citizens to “go out to movies and restaurants” and “go to the Chinese New Year parade”, etc, etc?

              1. So defying quarantine rules was bad when Demorat-run Democrats did it, but good when Trump did it, even though he just admitted to lying to you about it?

                1. So defying quarantine rules was good when protesters did it…but bad when Trump holds rallies.

                  Don’t know why I even bother.

                2. He was just pointing out the Democrats hypocrisy.

                  You on the other hand, are being disingenuous. To begin with, you don’t quarantine healthy people, you quarantine sick people and those who have been exposed. Restrictions on the travel of demonstrably healthy people is unconstitutional overreach.

                  Second… well, you know what? Fuck you, you disingenuous twat. Your first fallacy is enough to make anything else you say worthless.

                  1. “He was just pointing out the Democrats hypocrisy.”

                    Yes, that’s all you people do anymore in place of having thoughts or ideas.

                    1. that’s all you people do anymore

                      Better be careful, Sweetie, your prejudice is showing.

                  2. This disease is spread by outwardly healthy people. That’s the entire problem.

                    1. Yes, that is the entire problem

                      There is no excuse for your kind of stupid.

                    2. So you acknowledge that your prescription of quarantining only the sick is ineffectual in this case?

                3. So defying quarantine rules was bad when Demorat-run Democrats did it

                  Who said anything about defying quarantine rules? The point is that there were no such rules in those areas, because those who had the authority to impose them (all Democrats at the state and local level, not POTUS…who did not and still does not have that authority) did not do so, and in fact urged their citizens to not worry about it and behave as though there was no real danger. DeBlasio was doing that as late as Mar. 11, and refusing to close schools for a time after that.

                  And remind us who it was who it was who issued the directive that sent thousands of C-19 patients to nursing homes in NYS. Was that POTUS?

                    1. Was it Biden?

                      Well, at least you got the right party. Now here’s a coloring book and a box of crayons. Go play while the adults talk.

              2. The buck stops on an anonymous blue state representatives desk.

                1. That would be De Blasio in New York City, the epicenter of the largest, fastest spreading COVID outbreak in the US, and Cuomo in New York state, but by all means, please pretend not to understand the conversation. It makes you look so smart.

                  Robespierre thought he was smarter than everyone else too. You might want to read up on how that worked out for him.

                2. The buck stops on an anonymous blue state representatives desk.

                  Just because you’re too stupid to identify who the governors and mayors of the hardest-hit states and cities are, and at which levels of government the authority to implement things like mask mandates, school closures, etc, etc lies doesn’t mean everyone else is.

                  1. So what your trying to grunt is “not Biden,” yes?

                    1. Your career as an insult comic will not make it past the first show.

                    2. Were you born with the IQ of a potato, or is it something you’ve had to work your way up to over time?

            2. Succinctly, South Korea.

              You have just moved the goal posts. As we were told, right from the beginning, before the virus was politically weaponized, nothing can stop the spread of COVID. It can only delay it.

              The virus is spreading in South Korea. Now, name a single thing that could have been done differently to prevent the spread of COVID.

              1. Not demonizing those who protect themselves and others with masks. Not lying, even today, about the severity. Not viewing the problem as a PR/DJIA problem rather than a threat to health and safety. Not minimizing that danger. Not attacking scientists wagon know what they’re talking about. Not try to perpetually distract from the problem. In short, telling the truth, responding to that truth with sound policy, and promoting the efforts of those who were trying to do the above. See responses to these kind of threats by his predecessor for more information.

                1. Not attacking scientists wagon know what they’re talking about.

                  Name one. Name one fucking scientist who hasn’t been completely and utterly wrong.

                  I hate Trump too. Because he hasn’t pilloried Fauci and the rest of the shitstains who have lied their asses off for the last 8 months.

                  The rest of the shit you spouted is politics. There is no existential threat here. Controlling the rate of spread is the only responsibility at which the government has even the slightest chance of success. And they already did it.

                  1. John Snow helped resolve the cholera epidemic in London many years ago by advising that infrastructure be built to help residents avoid drinking their own shit. Trumps policy was to advise us all to keep drinking shit. Hey, it’s just politics. Now cheers me with your glass of shit to celebrate his accomplishment.

                    1. So, your response is a bad example completely irrelevant to the discussion? Just like every other Jeffy puppet or wannabe that infests Reason…

                      Do you realize that cholera kills children and breeders? Even at that, it is still not an existential threat because the reduction in the population it causes typically solves the core problem of overpopulation that leads to people dumping their shit into their drinking water.

                      COVID barely affects children and breeders. It is much less of an existential threat than regular old influenza.

                      Trump is a dick. The problem is that he let the losers like Fauci participate in the discussion. He should have muzzled them completely because they don’t know anything.

                    2. You’re trying to hold me accountable for making policy. I am not (I work in the private sector), Trump is.

                    3. You are just another shitposter deliberately being obtuse. You can’t do anything to stop the spread. The president can’t do anything to stop the spread. The science is showing there is no policy that can stop the spread. The people that think that policies will have any continued effect on the spread are idiots.

                      What could be done to delay the spread was done in March and everything since then is political theater. This was never an existential threat that justifies the suspension of the Constitution and it won’t become one this winter. The ‘public health experts’ need to STFU or be shouted down. If anything, Trump is derelict for not using the Executive to end the governors’ overreach, but I understand his reticence to do so in an election year.

                    4. Your word parsing is positivity Clintonian, congratulations! No, absolute prevention of new cases wasn’t possible. What clearly was possible was to slow the spread. Instead a man whose every word goes totally unquestioned by a large minority in this country led a cheerleading campaign against doing so. We all saw it. Fauci is not the enemy, he is a thin membrane between the status quo and the administration pretending the problem is a figment of our imagination. Fauci is an epidemiologist. If you want to be one when you grow up, you’ve gotta put in the work. It’s not a self appointed career. As for me, I’m just one of the millions of American voters who haven’t developed the right’s taste for the sight of American corpses.

                2. “Demonizing”?

                  Haha. Yeah, right.

                  Someone has hurt you. That is clear. Everything is so terrible and unfair.

  40. 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…. Read More  

  41. It would be a lot easier to understand this if these rioters were directing their anger at the government and trying to overthrow it.

    The burning down of complete strangers’ businesses says these people have the wrong friends and the wrong enemies.

    1. They aren’t mad at the government though, at least not in the way they say they are. They’re mad about capitalism, not the police state. They’d have their own police state in a heartbeat given the opportunity.

      BLM are Marxists, their leader openly admits it. Destruction of private property is right up their alley. They know that Marxism isn’t actually popular in America, but if you coat it in a thin veneer of racial justice you can get a lot of simpletons onboard.

      1. So they just so happen to be good at Marxism, thirty or forty years later.

        The CIA was freaking out at every turn =~70 years ago any time a group was founded by leaders who had values.

        If I go into a checkout lane because I want my Rice Krispees all debt-free, I just never seem to CARE enough to ask whether the store was organized by a Marxist or if the bagger was from Marx, at least philosophically thus far.

        Desperate times call for desperate measures … voila, the bar code laser scanner!!

  42. It is one thing to peacefully march against injustice, and quite another to burn down what others built up.

    What about when Nazis are inside?

  43. But why didn’t the interviewer ask any tough questions?

    Because the interviewer supports the premise.

  44. Modern-day leftists have no understanding of how society builds wealth and prosperity.

    That is a powerful understatement, but I’m glad it’s finally being pointed out.

    1. It’s the kind of thing an actual libertarian publication would be shouting from the rooftop on a daily basis.

      1. There seems to be a knee-jerk reaction from many in the journalistic field to want to side with the young people and the student movements. Say what you will about the 60s, this student movement isn’t the same. I liken the modern left’s student movement to the student revolutionaries in 1979 Iran. It’s a conservative movement that believes society is “too Western and too decadent”.

        Choose your allies wisely.

    2. Sometimes it takes comedians tackle this. The twins on Rogan’s vote for Bernie:
      https://youtu.be/jTzbPwqB4Y4

    3. Yeah, I should embed the frame in a site that collects gems such as that one. Except that I live under the oppressor while I do not have that technological capacity 😉

  45. Right. No excuse for looting and stealing. Hard to find any excuse. Let’s see how Steven state’s excuses for it when it came to looting and stealing in the past. His articles about Clive Bundy:

    “How are rural people supposed to survive in counties where almost all the land is owned or controlled by the feds? How are rural folks in California supposed to prosper when the politics of the state renders them irrelevant?”

    “In a way, all of us who grouse about paying for the services we use are Cliven Bundys. We just don’t have the guts to have a standoff with the federal government, or the chutzpah to claim that we’re fighting for freedom. Before we judge Bundy too harshly, we ought to first consider our own sense of entitlement.“

    Then it was guts to steal. Then it was people have to survive (laughable that Bundy did that to just survive). Then it was walk a mile in their shoes before you judge to harshly.

    He’s revealed his phony sense of principle. No phony libertarians can also. You’ve been cued!

    1. Did Bundy steal from private citizens, or destroy their property?
      Wasn’t he directing his protest/riot (your pick) at the exact agency that was responsible for the issue?

      1. Yes. He was in the process of destroying grassland owned by all citizens. And if you don’t think overgrazing destroys grassland you don’t understand grazing.

      2. By the way, if you, and Steven, want to make excuses for stealing from federal lands owned by citizens, I’ll make excuses for those who steal from business. And we will both justify stealing. Deal?

      3. Oh that’s right. Only libertarians can define and call out stealing. Forgot.

  46. William Osterweil is not a woman. He’s also a fucking dumbass loser. My patience with the woke left, BLM, and opportunistic hacks has truly been exhausted.

  47. I find it curious that so many libertarian left leaners do not think the maoists are an issue. Reason claiming Jeremy Corbyn is a “Centrist”. Another example.. a reporter asked Polis (Co. Gov. self made wealth) about AOC, his reply was “no one knows who she is, she’s just a meme on Fox News”. Fast forward to The Atlantic calling for complete redistribution of wealth and MMT. NPR promoting authors that do not believe in property rights. Now almost every high value corporation in the U.S. is promoting these commies.

    Its most likely EOC lawsuit threats on deep pockets; otherwise, these worthless media hacks would have been fired years ago (the ratings are proof).

  48. Notice most of the looters are young white folks? Anarchists and opportunists, not the BLM protestors.

    1. White people can’t be BLM protestors?

      1. Indeed. And in fact, most of the BLM protesters to my eye are in fact white. Especially the ones burning shit down. But then, I’m told, “they don’t represent ‘our’ (said by a white woman) movement”.

        1. It’s kind of preposterous how gerrymandered (is that the correct term?) the lines around the “legitimate protesters” are. They want the numbers and visibility, but not the responsibility for anything bad that happens.
          If you don’t like the actions of a certain person, they’re probably and instigator from the police, or a white supremacist, or an opportunist.
          It’s the ‘no true BLM protestor’ defense.

  49. Does Osterweil lock her doors? If she does, she’s a hypocrite.

    1. How dare they even own a computer.
      There’s a lot of people who would benefit by taking their phone.
      Are they receiving compensation for writing that book? The gall!

  50. I can’t decide if I’m bourgeoisie or proletariat. Definitely not petty bourgeoisie. Maybe trifling bitch bourgeoisie?

    1. Let’s compromise: petty bitch prole.

  51. If these idiots think all these goods are supposed to be free, does that mean they ironically believe in slave labor to make these products so available?

  52. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” ~ Karl Marx

    1. Does Paris Hilton get to define her own needs?

  53. Yes, the portrait of property ownership paints an oppressive picture as nothing short of a typical inner city scene.

    In reality, property rights amount to the only foothold anyone actually has to fight any valid, measurable oppression.

    But how exactly … how do you get these property rights? Being just you and oppressive fact of being marbled there into what remains between all private anonymous domains, that leaves
    you on one floating “vessel” of sidewalk and anywhere that money, or love, can buy.

    And yet, such work that was done and means anything happened on the frontier, where Men were made and legend was respected in seemingly infinite landscape where no one owned property as norm but rather as exception. All that freedom, wrenched from so much as a taste???

    Now if sidewalks connected national, state and local parks (virtually private investments of sorts as the late Harry Browne showed some of us ;-), and open libraries, and no one had to pay a ransom to go to and fro, then oppressive reins of the floating sidewalk can be vanished with just a few short steps en route to expanded liberation.

    At some point, any liberty-loving person realizes the wisdom that, “At some point, you’re going to have to engage that oppressive concrete jungle or one like it. And you’re not going to want it to BE oppressive.”

    Well, I say … I think we’re all here.

    1. Haha. Throw in a couple of completely unrelated WW2 or Woodrow Wilson references and you could be hank!

      1. Fourteen points of order had President Wilson for Versailles treaty for postwar peace, where all oceans may be shut down if it pleases international need for sanctions, and all oceans shall be entirely free for navigation as matter of international accord.

  54. This post is atractive and great thinking but reality is…READ MORE

Please to post comments