Conservatism

Time for Conservatives To Rethink Their Priorities

If MAGA conservatives want libertarians to be part of their tribe, they should halt their attacks on the free market.

|

A recent column on a pro-Trump website argued that libertarians such as myself ought to stop supporting third-party candidates and join their side in an effort to stand up to the Left—something of urgency now that Democrats control the presidency, the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. It's an argument I've often heard.

"This is an existential battle," wrote Edward Ring in American Greatness. "Siphoning off voters from the side that's fighting the hardest to preserve individual liberty and economic freedom is not principled. It is nihilism." Years ago, that position was at least tenable—back when Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan and Thomas Sowell energized the conservative movement.

These days, that's a non-persuasive argument given that the GOP has embraced many policy positions—and attitudes—that have little to do with advancing human liberty. Throughout my career, conservatives and libertarians have been allies on many issues and at odds on others, but now we're like residents of different planets.

For instance, both groups agreed on the dangers of Soviet expansion. Libertarians, however, warned that giving American security agencies too much power would undermine liberties at home. Conservatives and libertarians worked together to fight progressive assaults on property rights, but libertarians wondered why conservatives couldn't see how the drug war undermined those goals.

Still, we had many opportunities to work together. Whereas conservatives in Europe never had a problem using big-government to achieve their ends, American conservatives were about "conserving" America's particular traditions. Our nation's founding fathers were classical liberals, so conservatives often defended libertarian ideals.

The Trump era solidified long-brewing changes in the conservative movement, as it moved toward a more European-style approach that wasn't concerned about limits on government power. Trump wasn't a political thinker, but a marketing savant who tapped into popular and often-legitimate resentments of the increasingly "woke" Left.

Republican politicians mostly stood by Trump, even as he shattered democratic norms and reshaped conservative policy prescriptions, less out of fear of Trump himself and more out of fear of the conservative grassroots voter. What does it even mean to be a conservative these days?

In 2020, the GOP dispensed with its platform and passed a resolution stating its enthusiast support for the president's agenda. Party platforms are unenforceable, but they provide the faithful with an opportunity to create a mission statement. Apparently, being a conservative now means supporting whatever the leader happens to believe.

Such an approach is temperamentally and philosophically non-conservative, as are many of the goals of the Trumpiest wannabes. Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.), best known for giving a fist pump to MAGA protesters before some of them stormed the Capitol, recently introduced a plan to boost the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.

"(T)he wages of everyday, working Americans have remained stagnant while monopoly corporations have consolidated industry after industry, securing record profits for CEOs and investment bankers," he said. How does that statement vary in substance or style from something offered by socialist Bernie Sanders?

MAGA conservatives want libertarians to join their tribe, but their publications offer frequent attacks on the free market. The populist right wants to boost federal spending, impose draconian immigration controls, expand the power of police and spy agencies, step up the drug war and, well, stop when you see something of value to libertarians.

Since Reagan, conservatism has revolved around four concepts, explains Jonathan Last in The Bulwark, a right-leaning anti-Trump publication. There was "temperamental conservatism," which worried about the consequences of progressive social engineering. There also was "foreign-affairs conservatism," "fiscal conservatism" and "social conservatism."

"'Conservatism' as it is now viewed by the majority of people who identify as conservatives—and who once believed in all or most of those four precepts—is now about one thing and one thing only: Revanchism," Last wrote. Sure, I had to look it up, but "revanchism" means "a policy of seeking to retaliate, especially to recover lost territory."

Yes, that "own the libs" approach has muscled out principled discussions about long-held conservative ideals and goals. Last's column reminds me of Russell Kirk, one of the most influential 20th century conservative political theorists. He, of course, was no libertarian, and saw conservatism as a system of ideas and attitudes rather than a list of policy prescriptions.

Yet those attitudes—slow change rather than dramatic progress, a focus on prudence, trust in human liberty and variety, respect for societal norms, love of virtue, and commitment to social peace—are at odds with the nihilistic bomb throwing of a conservative populist movement that seems as radical at times as its progressive enemy.

"In essence, the conservative person is simply one who finds the permanent things more pleasing than Chaos and Old Night," Kirk wrote. As libertarians, we'll be happy to make common cause with our conservative friends once again when they re-discover liberty as the most pleasing permanent thing of all.

This column was first published in The Orange County Register.

NEXT: Review: Another Round

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. This just in: Both Major Parties Are Full of Shitheads

    Film at 11. And 12. And 1. And….

    1. Well, if the Shitheads can agree on anything, its that you are on the drone strike list.

      1. I have received $17634 last month from home by working online in my part time. I am a full time student and doing this easy home based work for 3 to 4 hrs a day. q1w.This job is very simple to do and its regular earnings are much better than any other office type work.
        See detail here…………Money90

        1. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much KJHY better than regular office job and even MNJH a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
          on this page…..READ MORE

          1. Time for Conservatives To Rethink Their Priorities
            If MAGA conservatives want libertarians to be part of their tribe, they should halt their attacks on the free market.

            Uh - no! Time for libertarians to rethink their priorities! If pot smoking, prostitute smashing libertarians want to live in a society where socialists haven't completely destroyed the free market and all freedoms with exception to smoking pot and smashing hos, they should halt their attacks on conservatives and join them immediately!

      2. I am making a good salary from home $1200-$2500/week , which is amazing, under fdfdfdfda year back I was jobless in a horrible ADt economy. I thank God oy every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to and pay it forward and share it with And Everyone, Here For MORE INFO PLEASE Just check this SITE….. READ MORE

    2. Only one is neo marxist, calling for Reddick education camps, seeking to commit economic terrorism for wrong thought, wants to control energy and the economy woth it, etc.

      Both sides aren’t even close to equal.

      Has reason ever put one of these articles put for the DNC?

      1. That one side is worse than the other for libertarians says nothing about whether or not either side wants us. They don’t. Neither one of them.

        1. The GOP wants us to help it win elections, but not for any other reason.

          1. It’s time to run the RINOs out. Pee lie Liz Cheney, Lisa Murkowski, and Bitch McConnell are in the minority.

            It’s time to force them out. Primary them all.

            1. I am making 70 to 60 dollar par hour at home on laptop ,, This is make happy But now i am Working 4 hour Dailly and make 400 dollar Easily .. This is enough for me to happy my family..how ?? i am making this so u can do it Easily….

              Click this link,…… Home Profit System

        2. Why whine about it? You don’t want them either.

      2. Why bother putting one up for the DNC? They are explicitly anti-liberty. They don’t even give it lip service and they certainly don’t think they can find common ground with libertarians. They think we’re the “extreme” right and need to be canceled. Both sides may not be equal, but they both deserve the contempt of any liberty-minded person.

      3. One side is Globalist and will boost KochBux, and one side is nationalist and will help Americans. Nick has already made clear which he prefers. Invasion USA is Reason’s “core value”, and he prefers Socialists over

        @nickgillespie:
        In the 21st century, libertarians are going to have make common cause with the globalists of all parties, with the people whose core value is the right of individuals to move freely around the planet.

        Watching The Brink made me think that for all the other differences Reason has with the socialist magazine Jacobin, it may matter far more that we share a belief in open borders.

        https://reason.com/2019/04/12/steve-bannons-economic-nationalism-is-th/

        1. Postmodernism gets Nick moist:
          https://twitter.com/nickgillespie/status/1120362508446064645
          Nick: I was on @LionsofLiberty podcast w @MarcDClair, talking about why libertarians should embrace postmodernism, my early days as a cub reporter, and more. Take a listen.

        2. Anyone miss when Nick went full “No True Communist”?
          “Totalitarians professing communism killed millions of people, but this analogy is flawed. Hitler was the leader of Nazism, Stalin the leader of…Stalinism, not communism.”
          https://twitter.com/nickgillespie/status/1021180699380920320

    3. The fact of the matter is that libertarians that lean almost always vote with the party they lean toward. The idea that libertarians need persuading to vote for republicans is ridiculous. So far as I can see, those of us who have left the two parties have left in name only. And anyone that thinks that middle and middle right will see any other legit choice in the next few election cycles is crazy. The Democratic Party is solidly owned by a hard left progressive streak. Just ask those idiot pro-life democrats that are now shocked (yes, shocked) that Biden has betrayed them. You may not like republicans, I don’t like them, but of the two likely powers that WILL be in charge, you can either vote for a democrat that AOC will inevitably bend to her will, or a republican that are arguably, now, the guardians of classic liberalism. And I’ll leave you with a dose of reality – there’s no libertarian candidate that’s going to be elected, period. So the very real effect of tossing a vote away out of some sort of innocent stance against the system actually equates to, well, Biden. Be pragmatic in the future because we’re legitimately in a fight for the western way of life.

      1. Agree. The libertarian party, to the extent that there is even such a thing, has no influence whatsoever. And it has no candidates who will win a major election (or even for that matter influence the debate). We can chose the lesser of two evils (far lesser) and attempt to influence the thinking of the republican party, or stand on the sidelines complaining as the woke left destroys the country.

      2. I don’t give a fig about the GOP’s policy positions, especially seeing as they have none, and are not even slightly ideologically consistent from day to day anymore, (since they became a full blown personality cult). But I do care very much about getting to pick our government through elections. The GOP has shown that they oppose this method of government, and therefor, I am forced to oppose them.

        The GOP has now argued explicitly in the supreme court, that they support voter suppression because more people voting means that they won’t win elections. In other words, they cannot compete in a democratic system, and need affirmative action.

        If you want your government leaders appointed for you, then support the GOP. If you want to be able to pick your government through elections, vote any other party. It really is that simple now.

          1. He really offers a disingenuous, distorted view of reality, doesn’t he?

            DEL is a silly, stupid, lying bitch. And a valor thief to boot.

            1. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/supreme-court-gop-attorney-defends-voting-restrictions-saying-they-help-n1259305

              “What’s the interest of the Arizona RNC in keeping, say, the out-of-precinct ballot disqualification rules on the books?” Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked, referencing legal standing.

              “Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats,” said Michael Carvin, the lawyer defending the state’s restrictions. “Politics is a zero-sum game. And every extra vote they get through unlawful interpretation of Section 2 hurts us, it’s the difference between winning an election 50-49 and losing an election 51 to 50.”

              There you have it. Not fraud, not election integrity, none of that. More people get to vote means Republicans lose. This is pathetically undemocratic and unamerican. No taxation without representation ring any bells? Consent of the governed? Self government? Have you even read the founding documents?

              1. “More people get to vote means Republicans lose.”

                Cite?

              2. “And every extra vote they get through unlawful interpretation of Section 2 hurts us,”

                You can’t stop lying. I truly feel bad for people that have to deal with you IRL. It must be exhausting to always be prepared for your lies to bite them from behind like a slithery snake.

              3. Oh boy, an NBC news article. Completely legitimate. It’s not like they’ve been in the tank for the democrats since at least Obama’s original run for the presidency.

                The 2929 election featured massive fraud in many locations and through numerous means. So stop with your your bullshit.

                You’re a known liar.

                1. ‘2020 election’

              4. To be fair, if we took “no taxation without representation” seriously we’d only allow you to vote if you could show you paid more in taxes than you took in benefits.

        1. “Voter suppression” = total disregard for the fact that POC are too goddamn stupid to get an ID, and 16 year olds are too goddamn stupid to vote.

          Haters! Haha.

      3. Be pragmatic in the future because we’re legitimately in a fight for the western way of life.

        And once you accept that, then there will be a continuing stream of stuff about which you will hyperventilate in order to induce panic. Everything will be the end of the world. And your job in life will be to convince everyone else that the end of the world is nigh.

        I call bullshit. If bad things happen they will happen and one vote will not matter one whit. BUT the more people tune out of your panic, the less your panic will be likely to make other bad things happen.

        1. Sometimes panic makes good things happen! LOL

          I laughed loudly when you said votes don't matter.

      4. Well said.

    4. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple works from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its NBHNW earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page…. Visit Here

    5. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple works from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simpleDEWQ job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page…. Visit Here

    6. I am making a good salary from home $1200-$2500/week , which is amazing, under a year back I was jobless in a horrible ADt economy. I thdhdhank God oy every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to and pay it forward and share it with And Everyone, Here For MORE INFO PLEASE Just check this SITE….. READ MORE

  2. “If MAGA conservatives want libertarians to be part of their tribe, they should halt their attacks on the free market.”

    While I do nor disagree, the article itself provides very little detail to support that argument other than vague generalities of attitude.

    1. Agreed but here’s one- they feel Google or Amazon or whomever should be forced to give platforms to Parler and others. That’s an egregious breach of free market etiquette.

      They could just as easily (and better) argue that big tech is too big and enforce antitrust if nothing else to ensure a more free market but they don’t- they just say that they have rights to others’ private property instead. That’s not conservative- that’s authoritarian and draconian.

      1. I find the argument for “must serve all constitutionally protected speech without private censorship” more compelling the further you go down the Internet stack.

        Nobody in the world needs to tweet, i.e. post little 280-character messages on a particular .com website.

        But, say, a law saying you cannot refuse to route packets to and from my IP address makes much more sense.

        1. It isnt must you retarded fuck. It is that you are given legal protections against liability for doing so. God damn ignorant pos.

          1. Watch out guys, Jesse is like, really mad.

            1. Watch out guys, DOL is like, really dumb.

            2. He isn’t mad. It’s just that you assholes are such idiotic shitweasels, so he is expressing annoyance.

              You idiiots don’t enrage us. You’re just annoying. Someone to be backhanded, or slapped down. So as to learn your place.

              1. I understand you know how to feel, especially anger and hate. You need to learn how to think.

                1. My cognitive abilities are about ten times greater than yours. I also have well developed analytical skills and processes.

                  In short, I am your intellectual better. Albeit that is not much of a relative achievement

                  1. I am your intellectual better.

                    lmao

                2. Anger and hate? Feelings? Was that “GOP anger and hate” on display in every major democrat led city last year? I live outside a red town and there was zero damage. People are coming in droves, our real estate is doubling. Anger and hate? BLM brought anger and hate, lawlessness and looting with full support from the Democrats. Can you get any angrier than burning/looting the businesses of innocent people?
                  What was your MOS and when did you serve? I have to say, I have my doubts. You were support, weren’t you? You were either support or the most unpopular team guy in history.
                  I was an 18B/18Z. How about you?

        2. When Western Union had a monopoly on communication did they ban telegrams from one political perspective and not the other?

          1. I can honestly say I do not know. You’re asking a question about the world long before I was born.

            I can say that Twitter is in no way a modern equivalent of Western Union during the heyday of telegrams.

            1. “I can honestly say ….”

              No, you can’t.

            2. I can honestly say that I do know since I had a family member who worked in Western Union management.

              The answer is ‘No, Western Union did not ban telegrams from any political perspective’.

              The principle is the same.

              1. Is your argument, then, that everyone *needs* to tweet 280-character messages to a particular .con website because the only instantaneous long-distance communication media in, say, 1890, would send messages no matter for whom or what the content?

                That’s your argument?

                Sanity check in your argument: Why in the world does anyone *need* to post little 280-character messages? Only sane answer: they don’t.

                1. “Need” is a red herring you employ because you can’t accept that your ideology is flawed.

                  1. No, if we are going to get government involved in compelling a website to publish speech that they don’t want to, asking why that speech *needs* to be published is a very relevant, valid question.

                    1. No it’s just a red herring you employ.

                    2. “[C]ompelling a website to publish speech …”

                      Is that what’s happening?

                2. “That’s your argument?”</i?

                  No, it's your argument, dumbass. The argument you made up from whole cloth.

                  1. Well, Commenter_XY’s comment was a bit telegraphic, so I do admit that I connected together the dots and dashes of his argument that were not explicitly connected.

                    1. And since you aren’t very smart, Geiger, I’ll explain where Commenter_XY’s comment was vague.

                      I gave two examples where the government could step in and enforce “neutrality”: Twitter and routing servers. The two were meant to exemplify the outliers of a range of different levels of infrastructure/service that make up the Internet/WWW.

                      Commenter_XY said “The principle is the same.”

                      I did make the assumption that he was saying the “principle is the same” when it applies to Twitter.

                      I assumed this because it would make sense if he were arguing about the principle being the same for Internet routing servers, since I had said in the first place that I can see that level of the Internet as being a place where it IS appropriate for the government to enforce neutrality toward Constitutionally-protected speech. In other words, if Commenter_XY were arguing that the “principle is the same” for routing servers he would be in violent agreement with me, which would mean he was arguing with me solely for the sake of arguing with me.

                    2. I’m too dumb to understand your bullshit.

                    3. “And since you aren’t very smart, Geiger”

                      WK shows that he knows he fucked up.

                    4. Dee doesn’t even know what people are talking about half the time, and she says someone else isn’t smart?

                3. The first isn’t about need. It’s about not letting the government censor.

                  A better analogy would be imagine the government promoted telegraph by a tax break, then said, “We’re gonna get rid of the tax break unless you censor harrassing telegraphs. Oh, by the way, Rutheford B. Hayes sends harrassing telegraphs. Censor him!”

                  1. Twitter isn’t the government and isn’t promoted by the government.

                    1. “Accordingly, the President excluded the Individual Plaintiffs from government‐controlled property when he used the blocking function of the Account to exclude disfavored voices.” See Knight’s Amendment v. Trump.

                      You. Are. Full. Of. Shit.

                    2. Got it. You don’t understand that there was a special court ruling covering the POTUS account. That was a far cry from a nationalization of Twitter.

              2. The difference is that Twitter doesn’t charge you $10 for a tweet which is about the equivalent of what a telegram cost in the mid thirties. My guess is that Western Union recognized that everyone’s money was equal regardless of political affiliation.

            3. White Knight just literally made the argument that learning history isn’t a thing.

              1. “You’re asking a question about the world long before I was born.”

                Yep. She’s really this dumb folks.

                1. Is this all just a big joke to you? IS IT????!!!!!

          2. That is a spurious analogy.

      2. Amazon and Google are both anti free market shithead. Both commit to anti competitive practices such as market collusion, buy and kill, and so forth.

        1. JesseAz: “Only one is … seeking to commit economic terrorism for wrong thought”
          JesseAz: Calls multiple people shitheads before he has even finished his morning coffee because they had wrong thoughts in his opinion.

          Maybe JesseAz should go sit in the corner until he can speak to others politely.

          1. You are not people. You are a shithead with a long fucking track record of saying shithead things.

            1. LOL, says the guy who was throwing tantrums yesterday over people expressing their personal opinions about food that differed from your opinions.

              1. Hydrogen dioxide

                1. This, from Momma the Moosefucker, who once wrote that there IS no such thing as an American Libertarian Party!

                  1. WK = SQRSLY

                    1. Sorry, but there is no way I could even get close to SQRLSY’s writing style. It is quite, err, unique.

                    2. Cite?

                    3. You can have sqrlsys writing style, because it is

                      A) not that unique
                      B) if it were unique, WK would be your sock that has a more “normal” style (sqrlsy can write with normal style when medicated, as demonstrated in the past)

                      White Knight is sqrlsy.

                  2. That’s not what I said, you borderline retarded troll.
                    I said that libertarianism isn’t a political party.

                    I knew you were stupid, but wow!

                    1. Mother’s Lament
                      February.11.2021 at 2:34 pm
                      Libertarianism is a political and social philosophy. Not an American political party.

                      Republicanism isn’t a political party either! It is merely a bunch of trumpanzees gone apeshit, lusting after the destruction of democracy!

                    2. Fuck off, sarc.

                    3. SQRLSY, shown to be wrong, will now spam the thread.

                    4. Fascists say… Communists say…

                      …Fascism and communism aren’t political parties either! So do NOT worry your pretty little heads about fascism and communism!

                      Ya ever heard of “distinctions without differences”?

                      Yes, I know already, Momma is a moose-fucking moron, NOT a moronic moose-fucker! I already stand corrected!

                    5. Sqrlsy’s just flailing

                    6. Mamma is just wailing!

                      “Libertarianism is a political and social philosophy. Not an American political party.”

                      WTF does that mean? How does it say ANYTHING about how we should live our lives? About whether Libertarianism is a GOOD set of ideas, or not? About whether Americans should vote for the Libertarian Party, which is… Duh! The part of Libertarianism!!!

                      Now we can rely on Moose-Fucker to explain how Libertarianism isn’t libertarian, as she has frequently done in the past!

                    7. “how Libertarianism isn’t libertarian”

                      Big “L” Libertarianism isn’t always libertarian you retarded sockpuppet, and libertarianism is a philosophy and not a weenie Yank political party.
                      If you weren’t mentally handicapped you’d understand the definitions and why capitalization and its absence is important.

                    8. According to Mamma, REAL libertarianism is for Government Almighty to micro-manage the snot out of what private owners may do with THEIR web sites, to the point that Government Almighty, for all practical purposes, OWNS those websites!

                      Communism isn’t a political party, either, AND, above and beyond THAT, Communism isn’t Communism either! And so, Government Almighty owning all of our web sites isn’t Communism, it is libertarianism!

                      Do I graduate now from Mamma’s school of Mamma-mangled political daffynitions?

              2. Eat lab goo all you want. And, when you are done (throwing up), tell us about how Officer Sicknick was brutally crushed to death by Clifford the Big Red Fire Extinguisher.

                1. “Eat lab goo all you want.”

                  So, you’ve calmed down from yesterday, when you were having hissy fits that other people have different opinions about food than you do.

                  1. Eat a dick.

          2. Wtf does calling you a shithead have to do with economic terrorism, one way or the other?

            1. Note that I made this comment on one of JesseAz’s comments where he was calling someone else a shithead, not me.

              1. Wtf does calling anyone a shithead have to do with economic terrorism, shithead?

                1. Because, like, saying stupid things politely is totes more, like, better than saying smart things but being mean.

                  These morons measure everything against their feelings. Absolutely everything. Their feelings come first, and that is why Trump’s mean tweets mattered more to them than hard authoritarianism.

                  1. I figured out long ago that several CACLLs that post regularly (JesseAz, Nardz, Sevo, this new Geiger guy…) here have a genuine blind spot in their personalities regarding the importance of civility and manners. You re-prove it every day.

                    What’s funny is watching you, JesseAz, and Mother’s all contending to be the alpha CACLL. Sorry, Geiger, but JesseAz and Mother’s are smarter than you are.

                    1. Go fuck yourself.

                    2. Who coined cacls again?

                    3. “It means conservative and conservative leaning libertarian, and I coined it. Is there a law in Canuckistan that your are not allowed to coin acrOnYms?”

                    4. Is it pronounced “cackles” or “cock-els,” or what? What’s the score? I want this term to really take off, but I do not want to sound like an idiot.

                    5. Too late.

                    6. BTW, it’s “cackles”.

                    7. WK, you and the other idiots are not worthy of civility. You are disingenuous, sophist trash. So you are treated as such.

                      Every breath you and the other idiots take is an act of oxygen theft.

                    8. “you, JesseAz, and Mother’s all contending to be the alpha CACLL”

                      Ken’s the alpha. We had a vote while you were off somewhere being stupid.

                    9. I didn’t vote. What if I want to be chief cacl? I might be willing to campaign, maybe buy a few votes. What does chief cacl get anyway? Some cawing birds swarming my convertible and perched on my shoulder for the cacl parade? Extra baseballs to throw at the target for Dee’s dunk tank?

                    10. Ken is not even a contender.

          3. This is all rich coming from you, White Knight.

            A fifty-center paid to troll and sow discord here, shouldn’t be giving us lectures on politeness.

            1. Nor are they worthy of those things.

        2. “Amazon and Google are both anti free market shithead.”

          To demonstrate the dedication of Der JesseBahnFuhrer, to “free markets”, Der JesseBahnFuhrer advocates the abolition of “Section 230”, which promotes small Government Almighty, and the protection of private property. Der JesseBahnFuhrer advocates, instead, the Marxist solution of Government Almighty taking over substantial parts of the property of Amazon and Google! And punishing “party A” for the writings of “party B”!

          Hypocrite much, JesseBahnFuhrer?

          1. You do realize that it’s spelled bannfuhrer, not BahnFuhrer, don’t you? Are you being retarded on purpose?

            1. Spellchecking Sqrlsy’s gibberish. Probably the most futile thing I’ve ever done.

            2. What does Deutsche Bahn mean?
              German Railway
              Its name means “German Railway” in German.

              Conservaturds want to “Railroad” us all into hypocritical conservaturd ways! They speak out of all 13 sides of their mouths! THAT is why Jesse is a JesseBahnFuhrer!

              1. Fuck off, sarc.

              2. Bahn Fuhrer would be a railway sergeant, and “railroading” doesn’t carry the same connotations in German, you moron.

                1. I resist getting railroaded by ALL idiots, from America, Germany, Canuckistanistanistanistanistan, or anywhere else! I do not like getting railroaded here, or there, or ANYWHERE, Scam-I-Am!

                  1. Fuck off, sarc.

                  2. You’re very stupid. Die.

              3. Kill yourself. Painfully if possible. You are deserve an agonizing end.

                1. Sexless Stranger-Strangler, drinking Sexless Stranger-Strangler Kool-Aid in a spiraling vortex of darkness, cannot or will not see the Light… It’s a VERY sad song! Kinda like this…

                  He’s a real Kool-Aid Man,
                  Sitting in his Kool-Aid Land,
                  Playing with his Kool-Aid Gland,
                  Has no thoughts that help the people,
                  He wants to turn them all to sheeple!
                  On the sheeple, his Master would feast,
                  Master? A disaster! Just the nastiest Beast!
                  Kool-Aid man, please listen,
                  You don’t know, what you’re missin’,
                  Kool-Aid man, better thoughts are at hand,
                  The Beast, to LEAVE, you must COMMAND!

                  A helpful book is to be found here: M. Scott Peck, Glimpses of the Devil
                  https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1439167265/reasonmagazinea-20/

                  Hey Sexless Stranger-Strangler…
                  If EVERYONE who makes you look bad, by being smarter and better-looking than you, killed themselves, per your wishes, then there would be NO ONE left!
                  Who would feed you? Who’s tits would you suck at, to make a living? WHO would change your perpetually-smelly DIAPERS?!!?
                  You’d better come up with a better plan, Stan!

                  1. Diapers? Once again you’re obsessed with eating shit. I’m sure you see soiled diapers as some kind of parfait.

        3. Jesse sounds like Elizabeth Warren, when daddy trump tells him to.

          1. That doesn’t track. Damn you’re a silly bitch. Maybe you can steal some more valor

            1. Regulate evil corporations more. What property rights?

              Yup. Sounds like Elizabeth Warren.

              1. It is amazing how wrong you constantly are. Giving someone a benefit isn’t a regulation halfwit. You are really ignorant of all economics.

            2. Hey Sexless Stranger-Strangler and Worshipper of Hatred, and of the Evil One…

              “Maybe you can steal some more valor.” So your tin-foil hat tells you that veterans (like De Oppresso Liber and I) are fakes? You have NO idea, since we’re anonymous! Get your tin-foil hat checked!

              I, for one, THINK strongly that I can tell a coward from their WRITINGS, and YOU, Sexless, ARE one (cowardly, sorry SOB)! I can’t know this 100% (because I have humility), but I’d be willing to bet that I have stared down dangers that you can not IMAGINE! Keep up your weaselly, cowardly ways, and they WILL bite your sorry ass!

              Humility is a MUCH underappreciated virtue! See this: https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/12/27/army-has-introduced-new-leadership-value-heres-why-it-matters.html Even in a supposedly “proud” profession, wise leaders treasure humility!
              And you have NONE of this virtue, asshole!!!

              1. I just skip what this creature writes. But I think flag refresh is also a good option. Makes things look less spammy

      3. It’s anti-propertarian, but it stems from the right stuff. When people have the general attitude that “speech should be free”, I don’t take then as authoritarian, let alone draconian, because they omit considerations of property from their analysis. If they keep thinking things thru, they’ll get there, and I don’t think of them as firmly on the wrong side of the issue.

        It’s like when Hugh Downs on the air described opposition to laws forbidding employers from firing employees because they smoked as (wording approximate from memory), “a libertarian view clashing with itself”. That doesn’t make Hugh Downs authoritarian.

    2. “If MAGA conservatives want libertarians to be part of their tribe, they should halt their attacks on the free market.

      A better idea is for libertarians to evangelize free market ideals to MAGA, instead of shouting “a pox on both your houses”. Because MAGA is pretty much the only political segment in America still receptive to libertarian economics.

      If libertarians think that the GOPe viziers and their Multinational oligarch masters give a flying fuck about the free market, they’re delusional. And as for the modern “liberals” and the left, they are doctrinally hostile to the free market. They are the adversary.

      1. And also open to violently bypassing the Constitution. Yeah, MAGA sound like wonderful allies for libertarians who desire a peaceful, thriving world.

        1. As opposed to you and your woke viciousness and garbage totalitarian nonsense?
          Totally.

          1. Please cite any instance of my ever having said anything “woke”.

            1. How about the woke truth that Officer Sicknick was ritually sacrificed by MAGA terrorists to feed the blood lust of Lord Trump?

              1. Officer Brian Sicknick is dead. That is a fact.

                All the rest of what you wrote is something I never said.

                1. “Officer Brian Sicknick is dead.”

                  So is Hitler. What’s your point?

                  1. Wow, I’ll just let your comment sit there without comment for everyone to read.

                    1. “Wow, I’ll just let your comment sit there without comment for everyone to read.”

                      Well, you already failed at doing that. Take your time. It will hit you eventually.

                    2. Ok, Robin Williams is dead too. Now what’s your point. Or do you need THAT to sink in too.

        2. Trump’s presidency was the longest stretch in my lifetime without a new war….

          1. That doesn’t change the fact that a bunch of MAGA rioters tried to violently interrupt the peaceful Constitutional transfer of power on January 6th, 2021 by storming the Capitol building while Congress was in session.

            1. Um, you forgot to mention the part where the MAGA terrorists captured Officer Sicknick and then crushed his head with a vice until one of his eyes popped out of his head.

              1. His death is all a big joke to you.

                1. You are a big joke to me, and everyone else here.

                2. No, he’s lampooning all the disingenuous crap you’ve written on the subject. As you tend be a dirty liar.

                3. The real joke is how you exploited and lied about somebody’s stroke to justify authoritarian measures.

            2. That doesn’t change the fact that a bunch of MAGA rioters tried to violently interrupt the peaceful Constitutional transfer of power on January 6th, 2021 by storming the Capitol building while Congress was in session.
              So wrong, on so many levels.

    3. I agree. Greenhut conflates Trump’s policies, with those of RINOs and social conservatives such as when he implies Trump supports Hawley’s $15 minimum wage (Trump says it should be up to the states which is certainly better than a federal law).

      “The populist right wants to boost federal spending, impose draconian immigration controls, expand the power of police and spy agencies, step up the drug war”

      I saw Trump knowing he couldn’t stop the spending (with statist spenders dominating Congress), he wanted better immigrants and may have agreed to more immigrants for better and enforced immigration laws, Trump unable to do much with the spy agencies except expose some of the corrupt ones without Congress’s help.

      Most of what Trump did, was reduce the federal regulatory burden via Executive Orders interpreting Congress’ laws to comport more with free markets. He also reduced foreign aid corruption that put America last. Consider that his biggest supporters in Congress are members of the Freedom Caucus.

    4. What Reason calls “free trade” is a set of trade, immigration, and tax policies that privileges foreigners and US corporate ownership to the impoverishment of US labor.

      Reason has yet to explain why it’s “libertarian” to tax domestic labor in preference to the products sold by the CCP. It is grotesque to call tilting the US market toward a totalitarian slave state “free” trade.

      And get back to me on your devotion to “free” markets *after* you’ve come out against corporate limited liability.

      At Reason, “free markets” means “whatever makes the Koch’s more money”.

      1. So then we should just go to war with China? I mean seriously – we cannot continue forward as is where they routinely steal intellectual property and use actual slaves for labor.

        So if you can agree that something must be done – the question becomes what?

        Is it not better to engage in a trade war than a real war? Or do you require us to expend bullets & blood along with money lost (which we’ll lose no matter what)?

  3. Yeah I think if you like Democracy then it’s impossible to support the Republican Party and their Conservative Legal Project which by design is meant to entrench power and deny some well needed changes. Cultural outrage ala Dr Seuss etc is just a way to get culturally insecure people to vote out of fear of an America they don’t recognize. It’s all a joke. Reagan started this march to massive DEBT by cutting taxes and increasing spending. There is NO party of small govt and hasn’t been in generations.

    My shift towards left libertarianism really began when I realized transnational corporations are the biggest coercive threat to the Individual in today’s society. Some of you are just fascists in Libertarian clothing and it shows. Imagine supporting a Drug War that has destabilized the entire hemisphere by exporting the negative externalities of production and shipping. Imagine supporting a Drug War that consumes a large minority if not majority of our resources dedicated to law enforcement and jailing. Imagine supporting a Drug War that has been used in almost every case the Supreme Court Case that has whittled down out civil liberties year by year.

    1. Cultural outrage ala Dr Seuss etc is just a way to get culturally insecure people to vote out of fear of an America they don’t recognize.

      *** scratches head ***

      You know, that seems to apply to, um, both sides.

      1. you know it can for sure! that’s why you can you know

        *scratch head*

        and weigh for yourself how they are functionally different. any party that supports Donald Trump the way the Republicans did… well they just don’t have any principles at all.

        1. You’re one of those bugs that identifies as a “socialist-libertarian/libertarian-socialust” aren’t you?

          1. All while typing away vigorously on an iPhone drinking a latte.

          2. Aww. Feeling a little called out by the “fascists in a libertarian suit” bit?

    2. Yeah, those damned corporations that keep us oppressed. I hate paying ridiculous fares for lousy service on New York Central trains, having to buy all my food at the A&P chain, work at my lousy job at US Steel, and pay inflated gas prices at the Standard Oil stations. And don’t get me started about AOL.

    3. “My shift towards left libertarianism ….”

      You get extra stupid points for the oxymoron of the day. I regret engaging with you seriously, because you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

      1. that’s a vintage strawmandawg

    4. Who here supports the drug war, strawman?

      1. I’m talking about progressives being the only force in America actually making gains on fighting the Drug War.

        It hasn’t been from Republicans.
        It hasn’t been from neoliberal Dems.
        It hasn’t been from Libertarians.

        It’s been progressive states passing it alongside other progressive policies (like higher minimum wages).

        1. “Kamala Harris” eviscerates your entire “argument.”

          1. I’m not talking about Kamala Harris. Clearly mentioned progressive States and I would add municipalities.

            Go take some more of yr meds Boomer

            1. Fuck, you’re really dumb.

        2. In those states it’s the PEOPLE getting the laws passed, not the politicians.

        3. This is true. The greatest progress toward liberty regarding psychoactive drugs has not been achieved by libertarian agitation, but coincidentally by progressives. Progressives want to upend the culture wherever that culture is the culture, so if that culture partakes in a certain list of intoxicants and refrains from another such list, they want to reverse those lists. So for instance clamp down on tobacco while promoting marijuana. Fortunately the degree to which they’ve succeeded in frustrating people’s desires for tobacco has been less than the degree to which they’ve succeeded in facilitating access to cannabis, so net gain for liberty, even though liberty per se wasn’t what they were aiming at.

          1. Cannabis is legal for the majority of the population and states. Tobacco is still legal in every state.

            Trying to paint democrats making drugs legal as anti liberty is quite a stretch.

            1. In WA it sure is. Totally overtaxed and over regulated. Which is typical of kook democrats in WA. Especially the traitor Inslee.

              Only progs could fuck up the legalization of cannabis. Which takes a special kind of stupid.

              1. Yeah, the GOP plan to continue to use cannabis prohibition to suppress their political and racial enemies was way cooler!

                1. Bullshit. The GOP has very little issue with legal cannabis anymore. Stop lying. Although if you did stop lying, that would leave you with nothing.

                2. Racial enemies?
                  You mean like the Democrat war on straight white males while completely ignoring the astronomical rise of violent crime in the black community? 15 shot in one incident in Chicago today. Have you heard about it? It never made the news. What if it was a white shooter? It would be 24-7.
                  So, about that MOS of yours. Let’s hear it. There is no way a guy with such outrageously liberal views ever saw the inside of a team room unless he was a support guy or a Chaplain, just visiting.

            2. I’m not saying they’re anti-liberty. Hardly anybody is anti-liberty, they’re just willing to sacrifice liberty to other desiderata. In this case, their effect has been mostly pro-liberty, albeit their intentions are nearly indifferent to liberty.

              1. I don’t see any support for your point that their liberalization of drugs is coincidental, or done purely through some sort of society level contrarian instinct. Quite the opposite, “my body my choice” is the default Dem position across several topics I can think of.

                1. “my body my choice”

                  Oh yeah, the mask mandates certainly display that very attitude.

          2. Well said Roberta. Progressives have always been prohibitions. That will never change.

        4. Its also been passed in conservative states: Alaska, Montana, and South Dakota

          And Centrist/”Moderate” states: Michigan, Arizona, and Nevada

          In a few of the conservative states the politicians are pushing back against their voters. To be clear, marijuana legalization would have nowhere near the popular support it currently has if it was identified as a “Progressive” issue. Its because Progressive Politicians were cowards or embraced the War on Drugs that kept this issue “nonpartisan.”

        5. Oh yeah, the progressives are totally killing the drug scene in Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, Atlanta, Portland, Seattle, DC, San Francisco, etc, etc, etc. Those towns are dry, Man. The crackheads are packing up and heading to GOP led towns where they can be free. Hilarious.
          Check out Heyjackass to see how Lori Lightfoot and her henchwoman Foxx are doing. Better yet, check out the CWB blog, it is a real hoot.

    5. “My shift towards left libertarianism really began when I realized transnational corporations are the biggest coercive threat to the Individual in today’s society.”

      …but Big Tech are our FRIENDS!!

    6. Bingo on your first paragraph.

  4. “”‘Conservatism’ as it is now viewed by the majority of people who identify as conservatives—and who once believed in all or most of those four precepts—is now about one thing and one thing only: Revanchism,” Last wrote. Sure, I had to look it up, but “revanchism” means “a policy of seeking to retaliate, especially to recover lost territory.””

    One of the better things I’ve seen written here.

    1. Wait isn’t that what the great folks in mpls and portland do too?

    2. Which goes hand in hand with current-day conservatives wallowing in victimhood.

      1. Losing your job or having your house set on fire for wearing a red hat with “offensive” lettering on it is political persecution, plain and simple. But, of course, you support that kind of thing.

        1. You guys frequently inadvertently prove your opponent right when you argue. It is hilarious.

          1. Nope. You saying that doesn’t make it so.p, and it isn’t.

            1. Oh?

              Geiger didn’t just full on, ass in the air display his victimhood for us all to laugh at?

              1. So you are on board with setting people’s homes on fire over political differences?

                We will keep that in mind the next time we’re in your neck of the woods.

                1. I’m ok if they want to try. Then we can say we were……. provoked. The result will be an end to progressives. Which is what this country needs.

      2. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jordan-peterson-before-trying-saving-the-world-try-cleaning-your-room-first

        We alleged “lefty shits” really like to quote our Jordan Peterson. Just came across this passage that applies to the CACLLs who hang out here:

        “There is another typical feature of ideological pursuit: the victims supported by ideologues are always innocent (and it is sometimes true that victims are innocent), and the perpetrators are always evil (evil perpetrators are also not in short supply). But the fact that there exist genuine victims and perpetrators provides no excuse to make low-resolution, blanket statements about the global locale of blameless victimization and evil perpetration — particularly of the type that does not take the presumed innocence of the accused firmly into account. No group guilt should be assumed — and certainly not of the multigenerational kind. It is a certain sign of the accuser’s evil intent, and a harbinger of social catastrophe. But the advantage is that the ideologue, at little practical costs, can construe him or herself both as nemesis of the oppressor and defender of the oppressed. Who needs the fine distinctions that determination of individual guilt or innocence demands when a prize such as that beckons?”

    3. One of the better things I’ve seen written here.

      I agree, very telling. We’ve lost lots of liberty because of both parties over the last several administrations and Greenhut makes it crystal clear that the libertarian stance is to cede the ground and oppose taking it back.

      Honestly, this is one of the most hilarious articles Reason has published.

  5. If MAGA conservatives want libertarians to be part of their tribe, they should halt their attacks on the free market.

    If libertarians actually hated the state as much as they hate the nation, they might be worth partnering with.

    Except they don’t, and they aren’t.

    1. ^this

      Libertarianism, at least LP/Reason style libertarianism, may not fundamentally hate the US as much as the avowed leftists do… but they certainly don’t think it can be “great”

      1. So, don’t hang out here.

        1. You are a leftist asshole. You leave.

        2. Authoritarian.

  6. “MAGA conservative” is a contradiction in terms. Trump is no conservative, he’s a populist. And he defeated more traditional “conservatives” in the Republican party, he stole leadership of the party right from under the Establishment GOP noses, because he attracted a lot of non-conservatives to the party. “Conservatism” is dead because they never really stood for anything, they didn’t fight for anything. Was Bush I or Bush II or Dole or McCain or Romney actually conservative? No, they were not, they were just Dem-lite candidates. They all favored the growth of Big Government control, Big Government programs and Big Government spending and if you don’t really stand for something, why not at least fight to win? And now that the Dems have gone full socialist, you better believe we’re in a fight for our lives, you goddamn well better be willing to drop any pretense that it’s a principled fight, you bite and kick and gouge eyeballs if that’s what it takes.

    1. You ever consider that Libertarians have more in common with Progressives than either group?

      Signed a former Libertarian who now considers myself a firm Progressive.

      Who is leading the charge against police militarization?

      Who is leading the charge against ending the Drug War?

      Who is leading the charge against Gerrymandering and other undemocratic election based policy?

      Who is leading the charge against general corruption in our govt leaders?

      I’ll give you hint the first letter of the movement is after L and just before Q.

      1. All good points. The fact is that Progressives have accepted that the world is changing and are putting forth a vision for the future. You may or may not agree with that vision. The MAGA Conservatives see the world changing and are struggling to stop that change.

        1. The MAGA Conservatives are for conserving very, VERY little, other than their own political power! They are not even for conserving democracy and peaceful transitions of power! Power, power, and MORE power, all day, every day! And THAT is why we had mobs of trumpanzees gone apeshit, lusting after replacing democracy with mobocracy! Many voters will NOT forget that, until long after the GOP kicks Donald in His big, overweeningly large ass! Which couldn’t happen a day too soon, but seems far off on the horizon, for now!

          1. Fuck off, sarc.

          2. It would be less pathetic if they were seeking power, power, power. Instead, they are going with a crazy uncle who tells them they are right to be full of resentment and feelings of victimhood.

            1. So you support political persecution?

              1. Enforcing laws against mobs of trumpanzees gone apeshit is political persecution now?

                “My violence GOOD, your violence BAD”, say the troglodytes!

                Has this been tried before? What were the results?

                1. Your incoherent babbling routine is slowly giving way to actual language, sarc. Might want to go back to the pre-written copy pasta.

      2. Lol. You were never a libertarian then. Please tell is how CRT, GND, open cries for socialism is libertarian.

        God damn clown.

        1. You realize a Progressive and a Libertarian President would most likely end up being virtually the same? In that the only consensus they would really be able to build would be the issues where Libertarians and Progressives agree?

          You’ve probably never had to think critically about it.

          The litmus test for me for good Libertarians and bad Libertarians is the National Park test.

          If you are pro-National Parks you understand that there are certain areas/goods that Capitalism is absolutely not the way to go all the time.

          If you think the concept of National Parks is ridiculous yr just a little bitch who doesn’t understand how to compromise or how your view of how society should work isn’t the consensus.

          1. “You realize a Progressive and a Libertarian President would most likely end up being virtually the same?”

            Oh fuck off.

          2. You realize a Progressive and a Libertarian President would most likely end up being virtually the same? In that the only consensus they would really be able to build would be the issues where Libertarians and Progressives agree?

            Yes, I do realize that. Which is why I am neither a progtard or a lolbert.

            The progtards and the lolberts have already agreed on the menu. Their just having a minor quibble over who’s going to pick up the check.

          3. Do you own a pan flute?

          4. If you think the concept of National Parks is ridiculous yr just a little bitch who doesn’t understand how to compromise

            ^ Libertarian.

            or how your view of how society should work isn’t the consensus.

            This right here is the difference between libertarian and progressive that you don’t see. You seem to think it’s a debate over whether or not individual liberty is the best way to force everyone to organize their lives.

            Your sense of overlap is based entirely in the notion that sometime Progressives want to force people to do things that they would naturally choose to do anyway, and so therefore forcing people to do things is the same as letting them choose.

      3. So, to you, outright totalitarianism is consistent with liberty?

        Yikes.

        1. It’s when you realize the biggest threat in the 21st century to the individual are corporations and not the govt. The govt works for the Corporations.

          1. Your statements is a gigantic fucking demonstration of the fact that you are perfectly capable of believing two contradictory things at once.

      4. Who is leading the charge against Gerrymandering and other undemocratic election based policy?

        This is bait. No rational human mind can look at Baltimore’s new districts and claim that Left-Wing governments which are themselves chock-full of Progressives are leading anything but naked power grabs.

        I suppose the name of this genius is a dead giveaway.

        1. On Balance, Republicans gerrymander at a MUCH higher rate.

          Just make a mathematical algorithm.

          1. On balance, the party in power gerrymanders at the same rate as the previous party in power.

            1. Sadly true. This is why we need a new model to draw political districts.

          2. Republicans “gerrymander” at a much higher rate, according to criteria Democrats have designed to label as “gerrymandering” any map that doesn’t favor Democrats.

            In the Wisconsin redistricting litigation, the Democratic party hired an expert at district map drawing to draw the most favorable map to Democrats that could be made without violating the requirements of equal population and compactness. It had a 2% ‘partisan bias’ lean in favor of the Republican party.

            A map with zero “gerrymandering” by the Democrats’ standard would have required ACTUAL gerrymandering to achieve! And that’s the case in many states.

            1. But the goal is not to have districts that favor one party or another but rather districts that fairly represent the population of the state. Not one in which 60% of the population is squeezed into 40% of the legislative districts.

              1. If you have to know how people vote in order to draw the borders, you’re gerrymandering. That’s the bottom line.

                Gerrymandering is drawing the districts to produce a specific outcome, rather than letting the chips fall where they may. Doesn’t matter what specific outcome you’re aiming for, if you draw the lines to guarantee an outcome, you’re gerrymandering.

            2. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/30/us/census-citizenship-question-hofeller.html

              In case you missed it, Brett. This, in addition to the many court decisions and enforcement against GOP gerrymandering, specifically racially targeted gerrymandering, means there is no rational argument that both sides are the same. Simply not.

              1. As long as black people vote 90 percent Democrat drawing districts to favor them by definition favors Democrats. Their skin color is incidental.

      5. You live up to your name well. Progressives aren’t the answer to these questions any more than Conservatives. Nice try on the troll.

      6. Defunding police and de-militarizing police are not the same. Individual citizens are leading the charge against the drug war, and both parties are following. Honestly, I think Trump did more to root out corruption of the entrenched bureaucracy than anyone I can remember. And of the elected officials the left are far more corrupt. Maybe you were never really libertarian minded and are just now admitting it?

        1. “Honestly, I think Trump did more to root out corruption of the entrenched bureaucracy than anyone I can remember”

          Then you have probably been consuming some very biased news sources. Because mathematically by felony indictments and convictions, Trump admin was the most criminally corrupt admin in our history.

          1. Nope. You’re such a faggoty prog shill.

      7. Everything you just listed is distorted bullshit. All of it.

        You’ were never a libertarian. You were just a gestating prog.

  7. One big problem is that many conservatives, after decades of GOP backsliding, are more or less socialists. They think that socialism and the welfare government framework can eventually work if we somehow do it internally, for citizens only, etc. To they extent they believe that, they are wrong. It is going to be very difficult to beat that inclination out of conservatives (and even more difficult to beat it out of the GOP).

    However, conservatives are, in my view, at least receptive to the idea. There is hope of showing them another way. There is no such hope with the progressives.

    1. That’s because socialism is like, the future dog. Writing is on the wall. Pure capitalism had it’s usefulness. But with advances in technology, a smaller and flatter world, and it has run out of places to exploit for cheap labor….

      Yeah it had a nice heyday, but like all empires the sun eventually sets.

      1. A good litmus test of conservative inclinations toward socialism is asking them how they feel about getting rid of social security. In my experience, saying such a thing is absolutely blasphemous, like telling a progressive there are only two genders.

        “That’s my money! I paid into it and have an entitlement! If those socialists touch my social security …..”

        1. Yes, the problem there is that, once you’ve reached a certain age, unless you’ve been pulling down the money, you’re on the hook: Social security kept you from being able to afford retiring without Social security. On an intellectual level you may be aware that the money wasn’t invested, it was just spent, but on a practical level you’re looking at living in a trailer and eating dogfood level poverty in your retirement if you don’t get that check.

          If my SS tax, just my share, not my employer’s share even, had been going into my 401-K, I could laugh off SS being ended. As it is, if they end SS I work until I die.

          1. I get it. Escaping socialism is not easy. That is a feature of these programs, not a bug.

            1. Agreed. Escape will have to be gradual, if it is to be possible at all. Demanding that it be cold turkey assures that it can’t happen.

      2. Lol. Either poes law or lying about being libertarian above.

        1. See https://reason.com/2020/01/01/trumps-inartful-dodges/#comment-8068520 , where
          Der JesseBahnFuhrer says, of Trump, “He is not constitutionally bound on any actions he performed.”

          Hey JesseBahnFuhrer! Is this statement of yours, above, now applicable to Biden? Or is only Dear Leader Der TrumpfenFuhrer qualified to be our dictator? If so, why?

          1. Fuck off, White Knight.

            1. Would it be legal for me to pay these idiots to commit suicide?

              1. Why pay them? They’ll get there soon enough on their own.

                1. For once, Goldilicks Gorillashit got it right! Those who have a “weak grip” on reality (like Goldilicks Gorillashit and Sexless Stranger-Strangler) are more likely to commit suicide! Get a GRIP, addicts of hatred and unreality!

                  https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-new-home/202103/surprising-new-suicide-risk-factor-grip-strength
                  A Surprising New Suicide Risk Factor: Grip Strength
                  Research suggests suicide risk is associated with grip strength.

                  More grip, less risk… Get a grip! Get a grip, hatred-and-Evil-One worshippers! You who have not ONE iota of LOVE for others, will end up not having enough love of your own putrid hate-filled, lie-filled lives, and you just MIGHT become the ultimate victims of yourselves! Don’t go there; it does NOT lead to your Happy Place!

                  1. Fuck off, sarc.

      3. Too much star trek for you.

      4. Socialists have been saying “We’re the wave of the future” since the first Chieftain and his henchmen demanded everyone throw their animal pelts and nuts and berries in a communal pot for redistribution to the tribe. And people have been starving and dying from it ever since.

        And to the extent it has been tried, Free-Market Capitalism is the reason for that advanced technology and “smaller and flatter” world.

        You’ve got it exactly ass-backwards. Join the ranks of OBL, Rev. Kirkland, RabbiHarveyWeinstein, Rob Misek, and KillAllRednecks in the Army of Trolls.

        1. Not to mention that half of the stuff goes to the chieftain, with the remainder going to everyone else. Remember, the Castros are (were in the case of Fidel) billionaires.

  8. The libertarian objection to the Republican party mostly centers around social issues like abortion, and the open borders obsession.

    The libertarian objection to the Democratic party centers around basic, enumerated civil liberties; Property rights, freedom of speech, gun ownership.

    So, basically if you don’t mind living in a disarmed police state as long as you get abortion on demand, the Democratic party looks good.

    1. This ^

    2. Abortion is the biggest joke of an “issue”

      You know who was for abortion rights before they were against them?

      Ronald Reagan
      George HW Bush
      et al

      It was always an excuse to secure Religious votes to maintain and entrench power.

      You also have basic, enumerated civil liberties in the wrong camp. Who wants the Drug War? Which justices have routinely limited our civil liberties at the Supreme Court Level? Which side routinely insults the intelligence of its voters by literally shoveling propaganda down their throats? Fox News is essentially elder abuse at this point.

      You want to get Democrats away from gun rights?

      Vote Democrat. Most Americans support gun rights, it’s a small component that is against them. They won’t win.

      1. No, abortion was the beginnings of the divergence between the views of Republican office holders, and Republican voters. The voters were anti-abortion, which is why there were all those abortion laws around for Roe to overturn. But the politicians increasingly disagreed with their own voting base.

        So the GOP began turning into a bait and switch con, because the office holders couldn’t bring themselves to actually act on the campaign promises they were making to win elections.

        1. https://www.nationalreview.com/2008/01/reagans-darkest-hour-paul-kengor-patricia-clark-doerner/

          ^^^It was all propaganda. Most republicans that exercise the actual power on the national level give two shits about abortion.

          1. Are we disagreeing here? I don’t think so.

            It was all propaganda on the part of the politicians.

            But the only reason the politicians would rely on such propaganda is that the voters actually cared.

            1. Geiger with his top level debate skills. Nobody gave a shit about abortion. It was seen as a weird catholic issue. Then the born agains and Jerry Falwell got together and convinced the rural ‘tards that abortion was baby murder, but really they were mad about Carter taking tax exemption status from racially segregated “religious” schools. And here we are.

              1. And how does that explain the existence of all those abortion laws Roe overturned? The legislature was just outlawing abortion for shits and giggles, despite nobody caring about it?

                Nah, you’re engaged in fictional history. People have been opposed to abortion in large numbers throughout history.

    3. Can we stop with pro abortion being a bedrock libertarian policy? The child has a unique DNA signature and is therefore an individual. Implying one can’t be libertarian and pro life is silly.

      Most libertarians agree with accepting responsibility for their actions and not harming other individuals through them. Abortion is completely against that policy description.

      1. +100

      2. See the problem with that is you are still proscribing your morality on someone else. You can be Pro-Choice AND Pro-Life. In that you yourself wouldn’t get an abortion, BUT that you allow someone else the freedom to make that decision. Also if you are pro-life the best way to prevent less abortion isn’t the law (abortion numbers don’t go down and deaths of mothers go up under abortion prohibition)…

        Rather it’s through trying to encourage women to use contraceptives, build robust adoption services that compensate women for carrying the baby through pregnancy, etc…..

        Wanting to restrict women’s reproductive rights? Inherently anti-libertarian. There have been philosophical arguments for abortion rights. There are plenty of other cultures that have zero hold up with the process.

        1. You can also be pro-murder and anti-murder. Of course, you would not commit murder personally, but you have no problem with others doing it.

          Idiot on another level.

          1. See you think of it as murder, I think of it as routine as taking a shit. If you can’t survive without feeding off on an individual you aren’t an individual yet, you are a FUCKING parasite.

            1. Then we both agree that progressives are fucking parasites unworthy of life. Right? Did I miss something?

            2. So when does that stop? Is a 6-month old a parasite? They can’t feed themselves and while they aren’t directly attached to the mother at all times, they would die without food or water being forced on them.

              Or what about someone who is confined to their bed and relies on people to take care of them? Are they viable?

              1. The eugenics movement was not an accident.

                1. I have to agree. The parasite comment did it for me.

            3. With sufficient lung development a baby can be safely deliver at around 21 weeks, sometimes a little sooner. This standard slowly slides earlier as technology progresses.

              So that isn’t really a good objective standard.

        2. “See the problem with that is you are still proscribing your morality on someone else. ”

          Much like those pesky abolitionists and slavery, right?

        3. “In that you yourself wouldn’t get an abortion, BUT that you allow someone else the freedom to make that decision.”

          The same notion was a popular “compromise” on slavery in the decades preceding the Civil War. “Personally opposed, but won’t stop someone else from owning some.”

          Do you see how silly it is, yet?

        4. No, abortion violates the NAP.
          There really isn’t anything to say after that.
          Left-libertarian support of abortion is just moral ratonalization and dodging of personal responsibility in order to support a held position.

      3. When I joined the LP back in the 70’s, the membership was predominantly “pro-choice”, but there was still a large pro-life contingent, and the LP recognized it as an issue libertarians could reasonably disagree about.

        Not like drug laws, where basically every libertarian was in favor of legalization.

        I’m not sure when the LP purged the pro-life libertarians, but it apparently happened.

        1. Democrats used to have safe, legal, and rare. They have moved on from that now which is fine because abortion has never been rare.

          Most reasons for abortion are purely financial/not ready to raise a child. Very few are for health, incest, or rape.

          Republicans should be pushing for a few things on this front. 1) Lowering the weeks to only 8-10 weeks (this might cause people to just merely shift their abortion earlier though) and 2) more support for single mothers/fathers and/or boosting adoption benefits/making it easier to adopt and 3) contraceptives

          The problem with many republicans and their supporters is that they view abstinence as like 99% of the solution, which is partially true. No sex = no pregnancy, but the reality is that people are going to have sex so let’s deal with that.

          1. “Very few are for health, incest, or rape.”

            And if they are, well, fuck them anyway. Right?

            Disgusting. Anti liberty. Backwards. Dumb.

            1. Those are exceptions. Bitch. You don’t even know what you don’t know.

            2. The grossest men are pro choice feminists. They just love consequence free sex.

              Get the abortion, bitch.

      4. DNA is the bar for personhood? Think through this a little. I know I’m asking a lot. Try.

        1. It is for individuality you retarded fuck.

    4. Alternatively, according to the article that you ostensibly read, the libertarian objection to the Republican Party mostly centers around irresponsible budget management, eternal growth of the police state, delegation of legislative power to executive bureaucracy, and collectivist disregard for basic individual liberty.

      1. So, the libertarian objection to the Republican party mostly centers around the things the Democratic party is no better on? That’s not the impression I get.

        1. If the impression you got was anything other than that both of the old parties are shit, what impression did you get? And how?

          1. You’ll have to forgive him. It’s hard to read with a Trump offering shrine in front of your monitor.

            1. You’re a drooling idiot and a prog drone. So fuck off with your ‘Trump cultists’ bullshit. We’re all free thinkers relative to a prog faggot like you and your faggot friends here.

              1. Think leaders should be picked by votes is progressive now?

                I call it conservative. I call it American.

                Trump is a traitor and a cult leader. Cope with it.

                1. No, YOU are a traitor. You are a liar, a valor thief, and so many other horrible things. It will end very badly for you.

                  Most likely you will end up in a landfill, face down.

  9. I really wish the Republican Party would go back to its early 2000s neocon era, when patriotic intellectuals like David Frum and Bill Kristol had more influence. Sure, you might argue the Iraq War was misguided. But it was nowhere near as depraved as Drumpf’s draconian war on immigration.

    As long as the alt-right white nationalist faction controls the party, we Koch / Reason libertarians have no choice but to vote Democrat. Which is why Reason staffers overwhelmingly endorsed Biden.

    #LibertariansForABetterGOP
    #PutTheNeoconsBackInCharge
    #(AtLeastTheyreProImmigration)

  10. As I have noted before, this is a time for Libertarians to make gains. The Republican Party is falling apart over Trump. Trump is also sucking money from the party for himself. Hurting it further. Libertarian should be looking at the political map and looking for places to pick up political offices. With the House and Senate close, a small number of Libertarian seats could make the difference. Moderate Democrats are flexing their power. There is no reason a few Libertarian seats could not do the same. Libertarians would be smothered in either party, but could be power brokers if independent.

    1. What the LP needs to do is focus on the state and local level to normalize the idea of Libertarian politicians. The third parties of the nineteenth century had decent success at these levels but rarely won a Congressional election.

      1. I’ve been saying this for years.

  11. The libertarian purity test guarantees libertarian views will get zero representation. Need to vote for the most libertarian you can get. Democrats are full on statists. They love the surveillance state and area absolute enemies of individual and economic freedom. Trump was clearly a mixed bag but lower taxes, less regulation, less foreign military involvement and judicial nominees more in line with ruling on the constitution were enough for me.
    So you feel good you voted for Jorgenson? I had voted for Gary Johnson twice.
    Get more in congress and senate that at least lean libertarian or watch the statists finish their takeover of America.

    1. Well said.

    2. Trump was not a mixed bag he was a authoritarian populist. He tried to have himself installed as President after he lost the election. There is not way to argue he was for freedom than an elected President.

      1. Another prog lie. Nothing is more lawless and authoritarian than a democrat.

        1. Other than trying to install yourself as President when you lost the election.

    3. Of course Trump is a mixed bag. Practically all elected office holders have to be. But Trump was the best mixture in maybe a century who actually won!

    4. Yeah, who needs elections? We’ll just use the 2a every time we want to change our government. That won’t backfire at all!

      1. Democrats appear to be making that look more necessary every day.

    5. With the money we save on taxes, we can almost voluntarily pay off a small portion of the several trillion dollar addition to the national debt that Trump left us with for no reason whatsoever!

      1. The extra debt from the Pelosi stimulus? The one filled with non KungFlu pork for prog let causes and kick backs? Where Pelosi simultaneously screamed that Trump not agreeing to that huge eater was killing oriole?

        Yeah, all Trump’s fault. Seriously, I hope you burn to death in a flaming car wreck. Which is still too good for your lying treasonous ass.

  12. In 2020, the GOP dispensed with its platform and passed a resolution stating its enthusiast support for the president’s agenda. Party platforms are unenforceable, but they provide the faithful with an opportunity to create a mission statement. Apparently, being a conservative now means supporting whatever the leader happens to believe.

    Oh, horse shit. They support the proven record of what Trump has worked on. If you don’t see substantial alignment there, you’re just being obtuse to come up with excuses to bash contemporary American “conservatives” and Republicans.

    I put “conservative” in quotes because the word never captures too well what they’re about, although it’s partly accurate in terms of their wanting to keep things the way they are. “Conservatives” would be happier if everything stayed the way it is now forever, because they mostly fear change as leading to worse, which fear has been fairly well justified of late; but they do have a somewhat discernable agenda that goes back basically to the time of the medieval plagues and the crusades.

    Anyway, I would say the alignment between “conservatives” and libertarians in the USA is closer now than it was 40 years ago, partly because of social and Cold War issues that’ve been taken off the table. It’s not a whole lot closer, but it is somewhat so, especially as regards the GOP, and meanwhile the Democrats from top to bottom have become absolutely hopeless as to libertarian concerns, where they used to show some promise until near the end of the 20th Century. So libertarians not only get a slightly better deal supporting Republicans than they used to, they also have much greater reason to unite with them as the only effective opposition to the Democrats.

    Or just ask Don Ernsberger if you don’t believe me.

    1. That agenda is far less awful than bidens open platform, which reason seems shocked by.

    2. ” “Conservatives” would be happier if everything stayed the way it is now forever, because they mostly fear change as leading to worse, which fear has been fairly well justified of late; but they do have a somewhat discernable agenda that goes back basically to the time of the medieval plagues and the crusades”

      Bullshit.
      Conservative in the US means you think the founding fathers had pretty good ideas, primarily independence and natural rights, and value those ideas.
      You present a leftist caricature that is both shallow and ignorant of human nature.
      Keep accepting leftist premises and being surprised that you’re forced to submit to leftist totalitarianism.

      1. The first place to apply the word “conservative” to politics and social movements was not describing the USA. It was actually very accurate without the quotation marks at the time and place it first referred to. Without the quotation marks, it means something different in every context, so that, for instance, the conservatives in the former USSR 30 years ago were for keeping things as much as possible as they’d been under the Communists during the period of their Union. “Conservatives” in the USA hated when the media applied that word to that time and place, but it was accurate.

        “Conservatives” in the USA cluster around an agenda that long predates the USA, so it can’t be primarily about independence and “natural rights”. Well it is about “natural rights” or “natural law”, but that’s because those terms are completely malleable, meaning to identify whatever their advocates favor with the way things “naturally” are, and will eventually return to just as gravity returns everything to the ground eventually, no matter how long an edifice holds it up in the meantime — which of course has no practical significance to the occupants of the upper stories.

    3. Since that proven record lost him the election it was a pretty stupid decision.

      1. The proven record was that he could turn a good economy to bad.

        1. No, you and your democrat friends did that at the state level. Trump had zero to do with that.

          1. No, Trump incompetent handling of the pandemic dumped the economy for us all. You need to read the news and get off the Q-Anon website.

      2. He’s batted .500 . So how many times have you been elected POTUS?

        1. Batting 0.00 on congressional and senate elections lol.

          GOP went from controlling all government to losing all government, and had the most historically unpopular president ever.

          Trump was not a victory for the GOP. It can feel like qa victory for the people who love him, but objectively, Trump has been and will continue to be terrible for the GOP. Just as he has been terrible for every business he has been a part of, other than the gross spectacle of reality TV.

    4. The big issues 50 years ago that caused the libertarian split from the conservatives was 1)Vietnam War, draft, and “kill the Commies,” and 2) Nixon wage and price controls on the free market (which triggered Nolan). Lots of more minor issues, sure, but those appear to be the big two. Foreign interventionism has not gone away, even if Trump glanced in the libertarian direction, and economic interference, deficit spending, endless war on drugs and police excesses, and immigration and welfare policies still split Ls from Cs.
      As mentioned above, L litmus tests will keep pragmatic libertarians from succeeding.

  13. Mind your own fucking business. Leave people and their stuff alone.

    Tell me which party or faction even pays lip service to these ideas.

  14. This entire article comes across as a denial they were wrong about Biden and instead seeking a way to say Trump made them ignore the DNCs open plans they have instituted so far.

  15. The only cure, if Trump is still living rent-free in your head, is a Libotomy.

    1. I hear those are best performed by using a small cranial implant. Typically 9mm I’m diameter. Inserted at a high velocity in close proximity to the prog’s skull.

      I hear the results are near instantaneous.

  16. Let’s analyze — again — what Trumpism is about, and wherein it’s good or bad for us.

    The bad is primarily mercantilism: trade policy oriented around “the nation’s making money”, i.e. currency surpluses. While in general this is a stupid idea and always has been, confusing the prospects for the country with those for a family (wherein positive cash flow bodes better for the future than negative cash flow does), it at least has the virtue of seeing persistent and large trade deficits (as the USA has had for a while) as a bad thing. It misconceives cause for effect, but it has a chance of waking people up to the actual problem.

    The secondary problem is opposition to free resettlement of persons, even absent pandemics, in the form of immigration to the USA. But Trump himself, and most of his supporters, are not blindly xenophobic. Their emphasis on wanting to get the best here from other countries has the virtue of opposing the entry of those who respond to adverse incentives under the current circumstances to drag the US economy down and favor the Democrats.

    Aside from that, what’s not to like about policy? Trumpers are at worst neutral to some liberty interests, but favorable to the rest.

    1. Well done.

    2. I might only add that the alternative to Trump, in this case, isn’t reopening free trade with China. To the extent that Trump people are opposed to trade with China, it’s because of their concern with the benefits to American workers. They aren’t fundamentally opposed to capitalism the way they are in the Democratic party. There aren’t any Republicans who openly describe themselves as socialists.

      If and when we get the opportunity to push for free trade, we should do so–but that opportunity will not arise under the Democrats. Hell, even even Democrat leaning Trump supporters are people who’ve run off the reservation from under control of the unions. Trumpism, in that regard, is an appeal to get people to leave the unions behind. It’s an attempt to persuade consumers and workers and get around the unions. In the Democratic party, you need the unions to get on board with trade policy, and that’s just highly unlikely to happen unless it’s a trade deal that favors them specifically.

      In regards to immigration, even if the Democrats are closer to libertarian objectives in some ways, their means fully embrace unconstitutional actions–from the separation of powers to the denigration of democracy in its proper purview. The legitimate purpose of libertarianism is not for the elite to seize the levers of power and inflict libertarian policies on an unwilling population using government coercion. From unconstitutional executive orders that violate the separation of powers like DACA to progressive arguments that setting the rules of naturalization isn’t in the proper purview of democracy (despite the Constitution saying otherwise), elitist authoritarianism isn’t exactly the libertarian alternative to Trump’s unlibertarian immigration policies either–and we can agree with the Trumpians’ condemnation of elitist authoritarianism even if we oppose their goals.

      Just as we can oppose what people say but defend their right to say it, we can oppose what the people want on immigration policy and defend their right to weigh in on it.

    3. free elections. truth.

      The very foundation and primary basis for a democratic republic.

      1. The 2020 election was as “free” as the “press” is.
        Free to distort reality and call it the truth.

        We are under a government controlled by the party of lies, doing the bidding of the father of lies.

        And, unless we can stop it from stealing elections, as it did in the last one, the nation is doomed.

  17. If libertarians like Steven Greenhut can’t be brought on board with the Republicans to oppose the biggest threats to libertarian capitalism in generations–like the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, and an all out assault on our gun rights–then Republicans should keep rubbing the faces of “libertarians” like Steven Greenhut into their willful stupidity like a dog’s face after he’s shit on the rug.

    I hope it somehow becomes clear to people in the Republican party that libertarians like those on Reason’s staff are in no way representative of libertarians anywhere else but on Reason’s staff. The principles of libertarianism and market capitalism certainly remain the same–despite those who described themselves in libertarian terms but abandoned their principles using Trump as an excuse.

    Here we are suffering under a progressive regime that’s launched a naked assault on speech, effectively bailed states out of their unfunded pension obligations to the tune of $350 billion, is passing legislation to come after our gun rights like never before, and is promising to remake the economy into a socialist experiment in maximizing social equity under the guise of minimizing carbon emissions–and you’re hunting for good reasons to join the Republicans in opposing these anti-libertarian, anti-capitalist monstrosities?!

    All of this was foreseeable. All of this was foreseen. All of this could have been avoided if we’d reelected President Trump.

    There isn’t anything libertarian about being willfully blind, and there isn’t anything principled about selling libertarian capitalism short in the name of opposing Trump. If you weren’t willing to vote for Donald Trump–not even if Biden being elected meant a significantly more authoritarian and socialist America–then you were not principled. You sold libertarian capitalism down the river.

    And if you can’t even admit that now–not even after all the things the progressives are doing and have done–then you’re an embarrassment to libertarian capitalism and other important things like principles and integrity.

    P.S. Fuck you.

    1. + 1000 …….. to the nth power.

    2. Incidentally, we’ll probably know whether Biden intends to fully withdraw from Afghanistan come April 1st–because it will take 30 days to get our equipment out of the country if we really intend to leave by May 1st. That being said, Biden’s reluctance to follow through on Trump’s deal with the Taliban to fully withdraw from Afghanistan by May 1st was also well known before the election. If you didn’t vote for Trump in November of 2020, and still claim that withdrawing from quagmires is an important libertarian principle, that’s embarrassing. If Biden elects to go back to war with the Taliban come May 1st rather than withdraw, your failure to vote for Trump will be humiliating. After that, short of a mea culpa, why would anyone take you seriously about your principles ever again?

    3. It all might have been avoided, too, if 90,000 GOP Georgia votes in the Nov. general election had not disappeared in the January senatorial run-off. What turned them off between Nov. and January?

      1. A fake election.

      2. I am not throwing doubt on what you’re saying, but I suspect stuffing the ballot box has been a feature of most every election since the beginning of elections.

        I watched football before the coach’s challenge. Before the coach’s challenge, bad calls were considered part of the game. Good teams were expected to overcome blown calls.

        As I mentioned above, our job as libertarians isn’t to seize the levers of power and inflict libertarian capitalism on the unwilling using the coercive power of government. We’re here to persuade the masses to want a more libertarian and capitalist world.

        We failed in November of 2020, and some of us let the authoritarian socialists win by actively persuading people not to vote for the libertarian and capitalist alternative. And that latter group needs to be humiliated for it–especially if they still won’t admit they were carrying wood for the authoritarian socialists, who were building a gallows from which to hang us. They aren’t principled. They’re a fucking disgrace to libertarianism.

        1. “…but I suspect stuffing the ballot box has been a feature of most every election since the beginning of elections…”

          You’ve said this before, and to a degree it is true, but this election was qualitatively different. Show me another Presidential election where the incumbent gained over 10 million votes from his prior showing, and he still lost. Yes there has been fraud in prior Presidential elections—Kennedy immediately comes to mind—but show me where the country was as split as it is now, and fraud also gave the victory to the other team.

          The fraud was naked, Ken. And no one has been, or will be punished for it. HR 1 sets those procedures in concrete, and if passed, anyone not Uniparty will never win another US election so long as those procedures remain.

          Things are different now, than they were even ten years ago. A group that exposed themselves to gain power, to the degree they did throughout 2020, isn’t going to stop now that they’ve taken the high chair. And so, thinking that 2022 is somehow going to be different than 2020, just because inter-Presidential elections always have been in the past is misplaced faith.

          The Democrats aren’t going so fast because they think they have only two years to get all this done. They’re going this fast because they can. For the same reasons they didn’t want to wait out another Trump term. Especially when the Senate was likely going to go D in 22. They could have gone this fast in 24 easily. They didn’t wait, because they don’t have to.

          For all of the whining we do, no one has tried to stop them.

          1. If you’ve seen me say this before, you’ve probably heard me talk about border ruffians, political machines, and unions going back to before the Civil War and through the 1970s. Again, I’m not saying there weren’t any blown calls, but I am saying that we didn’t do our part. We didn’t just miss our blocking assignments. Some of our players were trying to score points for the other team.

            As Candide said, we need to tend our own garden.

        2. Great analogy with the football game. I’ve never respected fans who complain bitterly about a game “stolen” by the referees if the final score is not close. Trump election fraud conspiracy theorists are like football fans complaining about the refs after a 35-17 loss. Fraud might have made the final POTUS vote tally different but didn’t change the final POTUS winner.

          1. As far as state totals, leading to the only count that matters – the electoral college – the vote was exceedingly close.
            Less that 100,000 votes out of 158,000,000 cast, in key states – all of which Trump was ahead on election night.
            The football analogy would be more apt if the third quarter score showed one team ahead, and those blown calls came in the fourth and let the other team take, and keep the lead.

    4. I like angry ken

    5. You nailed it, Ken. Thank you.

      1. He’s one of the very few reasons I continue to read and post here.

    6. (For context: I voted for Reagan in 1980 and republican ever since.)

      I have always believed that libertarians really only wanted three things: abortion on demand; same sex marriage; legal marijuana.

      They talk about lower taxes, freedom, rights, the Constitution … but they help democrats get elected. Doing that got them the three things they actually want, at the cost of the things they pretend to want.

      Now the monster has escaped the leash. Personally, I don’t believe the people who cheated in 2020 to gain unlimited power are going to refrain from cheating in 2022 so it can be taken away from them. I don’t believe it matters how libertarians vote in the future.

      1. I hope the point isn’t getting lost, here, that the Beltway libertarians here on staff are not necessarily the same as libertarians everywhere–and if you look at the reaction in this thread, you’ll see a number of libertarian types who were arguing in favor of teaming with Republicans on various issues.

        My primary concern is taxes. Then comes spending, the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, and the separation of powers.

        I supported the invasion of Afghanistan as a legitimate war of self-defense, but one of the best reasons for libertarians to vote for Trump was to get us out of there now. I opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and one of the better reasons to do that was because I oppose the taxing and the spending.

        In all honesty, Bush Jr. and Obama were very much alike in all the ways that make libertarian capitalists upset. Bush Jr. pushed socialism by way of expanding Medicare for prescription benefits, which was supposed to preempt a solution like ObamaCare, but merely paved the way for ObamaCare by doing some of the heavy lifting required for ObamaCare to happen beforehand. Likewise, Bush Jr. and Obama were equally complicit in TARP. Bush and Obama were the same in their violations of our Fourth Amendment rights with warrantless wiretapping, the NSA, etc. They were both neocon on foreign adventures.

        Trump was a complete break the Republican establishment, but it was hard for a lot of my fellow libertarians to see the differences between the Bush Jr. era Republicans, Obama era Republicans, and Trump. For 16 years, the Republicans establishment betrayed the principles of what people of your ear associate with the Reagan revolution–and libertarians like Milton Friedman.

        Admittedly, when I was talking to my fellow libertarians about Trump best policies (especially on forever wars, opposition to bailing out the state, opposition to the Green New Deal, etc.), it sometimes felt like I was Stephen before the Sanhedrin. In their defense, it’s easy to see why libertarians became disenchanted with the establishment Republicans when they were under the thrall of traitors to the Constitution and capitalism like John Boehner. The Republicans in the Bush Jr. and Obama years were a disgrace to the Reagan revolution.

        1. And it’s important to get out of Afghanistan very soon, because it’s been 20 years and withdrawal is now close to becoming “unthinkable”. People get used to a status quo of long standing as the normal way things are. It justifies itself. It must be a good thing since it’s been around this long, so keep it going, right?

          We’re lucky liquor prohibition was repealed as soon as it was, because if it’d stayed in force for another 15 years or so, a generation would’ve grown up thinking it was the normal way, the way things should be, and it would’ve lasted as long as narcotics prohibition has lasted, and the policy would’ve started to spread to other countries.

          Hysteresis in public policy is a very important factor. In the USA a military draft was the norm for more than a generation, and it took a very unpopular war to undo it. Now that the forces are all-volunteer again for this long, resumption of a draft is as unthinkable as getting rid of it was.

          Gigantic federal deficits are now starting to justify themselves too, to the point where bringing budgets as close to balance as they had been previously — borrowing only hundreds of billions on net per year — are in danger of becoming seen as a radical and silly idea.

    7. Why is it that you guys never perceive the total delegitimizing of our elections as dangerous liberty?

      Oh that’s right. Ken supports the use of the Big Lie against his fellow dumber Trumpists. Because Joe Biden is a secret satanist Stalinist, or something, and that makes getting rid of actual elections necessary. And the Big Lie is necessary to motivate those dumber Trumpists to do things like storming congress when they are making the peaceful transfer of power official, in accordance with the constitution.

      So there you have it. Ken and the smarter Trumpists are duplicitous, traitorous enemies of the constitution who are happy to let their dumber co-cultists use their lives as cannon fodder for daddy Trump.

      1. “Why is it that you guys never perceive the total delegitimizing of our elections as dangerous liberty?”

        Are you actually asking this question with a straight face? LMAO, you and the DNC trolls here are beyond help.

      2. “Because Joe Biden is a secret … Stalinist[.]”

        It’s not a secret.

      3. You cannot make such a statement when the last election was as illegitimate as could be.
        Just one example – one that there is no doubt about it happening – the suppression of the story of Hunter Biden’s China dealings, and Joe’s involvement in them.
        From the outright censorship of the stories, by the social media platforms, to the blatant disinformation that it was a plant by the Russians, as explained by the mainstream media.
        There was enough of a percentage to change the election results, by Biden voters, that said they would not have voted that way, if they had the real story.
        And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

    8. +1

      Ken Shultz > Reason staff

    9. “All of this could have been avoided if we’d reelected President Trump.”
      But we did re-elect Trump.
      The descent into the banana republic we face was because that election was stolen.
      Blame the left, and any so-called libertarians who have gone along with what is obvious – not the legal voters.

  18. At the risk of being mean…why the fuck would ANYBODY want libertarians on their side? As Reason has shown, all libertarians seem to be are Democrats angling for a better job.

  19. Open borders, legal drugs and whooping up the polymorphous perverse is not going to win hearts and minds among the MAGA crowd.

  20. You seriously think Team Blue will do you any better Greenhut? Gimme a fucking break.

  21. MAGA conservatives want libertarians to join their tribe, but their publications offer frequent attacks on the free market. The populist right wants to boost federal spending, impose draconian immigration controls, expand the power of police and spy agencies, step up the drug war and, well, stop when you see something of value to libertarians.

    For some reason, this quote springs to mind whenever Republicans start begging for votes from libertarians:

    Rorschach’s Journal. October 12th, 1985: Dog carcass in alley this morning, tire tread on burst stomach. This city is afraid of me.

    I have seen its true face. The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown.

    The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout “Save us!”… and I’ll whisper “no.”

  22. Please continue to deny reality, it’s fun to watch.

    Keep licking those boots, you clowns. After all, your existence as a publication depends on it. You’ll never get a dime for me when you shill for the establishment

  23. A recent column on a pro-Trump website argued that libertarians such as myself ought to stop supporting third-party candidates and join their side in an effort to stand up to the Left—

    These days, that’s a non-persuasive argument given that the GOP has embraced many policy positions—and attitudes—that have little to do with advancing human liberty.

    Steven, honey, sweetheart, the Trump supporters aren’t GOP any more. They’re not asking you to join the GOP. They’re asking you to ally alongside the MAGA to oppose the policies that openly destroy human liberty from the Left.

    The GOP is ‘NeverTrump’, mate.

    And yeah, these guys support a dude who puts up trade barriers in some places – and takes them down in others. And yeah, that’s bad. Is it as bad as violating the Constitution by trying to usurp the state’s power to run their own elections? Is it as bad as trying to make it illegal (first in CA and now in the whole country) to work as a contractor? Is it as bad as advocating for extending abortion limits *past birth*?

    Yes, the GOP sucks. Yes, MAGAdiots are only somewhat better. No, you don’t have to stop being libertarian.

    But I don’t understand the idea that you won’t work with them – but you will work with Democrats.

    1. ” I don’t understand the idea that you won’t work with them – but you will work with Democrats.”

      Honest people tending to struggle when confronted with the serially dishonest, your confusion is understandable.

  24. If MAGA conservatives want libertarians to be part of their tribe, they should become the exact opposite of what they are. (Which is unlikely.)

    1. Trump has been the most libertarian president in the modern era.

      If you think Biden is an improvement in any aspect of individual liberty you really need to have your head examined.

      1. But Thomas, NO MORE MEAN TWEETS!!!

  25. As a libertarian leaning conservative, my observation is that the MAGA folks want nothing to do with libertarianism. They are too authoritarian for libertarianism. They want a right wing dictator.

    1. Nice concern trolling and astroturfing Jeff.

    2. Conservatives are long gone. The GOP is fractured. The sprit that inspired it no longer exists.

      Democrats have never been the answer. The nation needs a functional GOP.

      Our children have lost a year. The youngest, perhaps some know about physical brain development. Myelination, pathways. It is lost and cannot be regained. Older children cannot regain their chances for the future they were hoping for.

      Beyond politics as we know it. There is an experiment in libertarian something. Worth looking at again.

      1. I was grocery shopping last week. A woman, masked, had a child of about 8 months in the child seat of her cart. As always, I looked the child in the eyes and smiled. I think it is important to do that to help the child evolve socially and usually the child will smile back. This child looked back with a blank face. I realized he could not see my smile while I was wearing a mask. I think we are doing harm to children that we will not fully understand for many years.

        1. I talk and wave at the little ones in my store and usually get a friendly reaction. All is not lost.

          Heck, Vitamin C drops that I need for my throat have done a number on my tooth enamel, so I may not want them seeing my teeth until I can afford titanium teeth with a realistic veneer.

    3. If this isn’t concern trolling, it’s written by someone who gets his news about the Right from the Left.

      Which is just idiotic.

      1. Trump lost 60 some court cases regarding the election. His own lawyers withdrew cases when given the chance to present evidence. He incited the attack on congress.

        Trump is blatantly anti liberty. He doesn’t want your vote to count. He want to grab power, like a pussy.

        1. More distorted bullshit from a valor thieving traitor.

        2. “He incited the attack on congress.”

          The failed impeachment trial says you’re full of shit.

          1. He’s a valor thief too. Remember when he pretended to be a special forces vet and claimed to have served with Eddie Gallagher?

            He really deserves a special kind of suffering.

        3. “Trump lost 60 some court cases”

          You can’t “lose” court cases that judges are too frightened to hear in the first place. You’re so utterly dishonest DOL.

      2. He’s a paid troll.

    4. Yes.

    5. No, and if you were observant, at all, you’d see that Donald Trump was no kind of dictator – unlike Zhou Bai-din, who has done, with both houses of Congress within his grasp, more dictatorial executive orders than any other.
      MAGA folks want us back to a time when liberty was for normal people, criminals were treated as such and the perverts and nut-cases weren’t pandered to.

  26. Maybe Greenhut’s question needs to be turned around. Maybe Team L should rethink their priorities. Meaning, it is possible to be ideologically pure and utterly irrelevant at the same time; that is where Team L is these days.

    There is no libertarian I know who could possibly align themselves with a collectivist ideology that is liberty killing to individuals, which is precisely what Team D espouses.

    Whatever happened to debate and persuasion by means of logic and principles? Greenhut just wants to pick up his ball and leave the field. I don’t that that is a winning approach. His diagnosis is suspect, and his prescription is terminal.

    1. “There is no libertarian I know who could possibly align themselves with a collectivist ideology that is liberty killing to individuals, which is precisely what Team D espouses.”

      It’s also precisely what Team R is espousing. It’s like being in 1930s Europe and being forced to choose between Fascism and Communism. (I’m not trying to draw a specific parallel to the systems here, simply pointing out there are some choices where there is no winning choice).

      You’re offering Libertarians a Kobayashi Maru scenario – It’s a loss either way. The only way for Libertarians to be relevant is to withhold support until one of the parties changes its priorities to include Libertarians. The only way Libertarians can be relevant is to take our ball and go home when neither party offers anything worthwhile.

      Maybe a few more elections of Republican failures will convince Republicans that Libertarians are a constituency that needs to be courted.

      (Or, just a though, maybe the Libertarian party will increasingly gain the disaffected from the major parties and become a significant political force. There’s probably nothing more damaging to Democrats than letting them rule for a couple years).

      1. I have heard that for many years. If we can just lure enough freedom loving republicans away from the GOP, the GOP will become more freedom loving. That’s not how subtraction works.

      2. “It’s like being in 1930s Europe and being forced to choose between Fascism and Communism”

        No. It’s like being in 1930s Europe and being forced to choose between Fascism and the Mouseketeers.

        The Republicans are a herd of retards, but the Democrats are the demonic offspring of Cthulhu and Big Brother.

    2. Remember the days when “it’s nobody’s business if you do” was a libertarian cri du coeur?

      The Democrats have declared that every aspect of your life is their business. Yet the writers here tell us the problem lies elsewhere.

  27. Conservatives and libertarians actually appear to be on the cusp of obtaining and sustaining long term power or at least significant sway. The Republican party has somehow morphed substantially into the party of people who work in more basic industries. That is, industries that actually require blue collar workers whereas the Democrats have largely become a party of people who work in occupations that don’t require blue collar workers – finance, software, law, etc. The white blue collar worker, with their MAGA caps, have been migrating towards Republicans since Reagan. The last election showed some inroads among minority blue collar workers. That’s a trend that can be accelerated.

    Certainly, the working class constituents are often rough around the edges, which was true for decades when the Dems claimed to be the party of the working man. However, the Democrats are openly hostile to industries that actually need someone to drive a cat, dig a hole, pound a nail, or even just use a screwdriver. As a result, the Dems have managed to align labor’s interests with those of their managers and financial backers. If that can’t be capitalized on I don’t know what can.

  28. If MAGA conservatives want libertarians to be part of their tribe, they should halt their attacks on the free market.

    ROFLMAO!

    If libertarians want to be part of the Conservative or any other meaningful political movement, they should stop saying stupid shit like “The Conservatives need us!” and “If my vote mattered, I’d vote for Biden; but since it doesn’t, I’m voting for Jorgensen.”

    Conservatives need “libertarians” like they need a bad cold.

    1. I don’t think many libertarians are saying that conservatives need them. This article is a reply to the reverse situation, a letter on a conservative website saying that they need libertarians and wish that libertarians become more accepting of the Republican Party. Its not the first time I’ve seen such a letter since the past election.

      1. OK, still funny that Greenhut stumbles across a letter that says, “Dear Libertarians,” and thinks “They must mean me!”

        The couple paragraphs on revanchism make the point painstakingly clear. Greenhut wants his liberty back, but only if he doesn’t have to fight for it or tolerate being associated with people who post mean tweets.

        I didn’t read the original letter issued out to libertarians, but I’m pretty sure they didn’t mean spineless, “I’ll take peaceful enslavement over contentious freedom.” shits like Greenhut. Given Jorgensen’s failure to turn out a greater percentage than Johnson, there’s ample evidence that electorate and/or LP doesn’t want them.

        1. For having even less name recognition than Johnson, less media coverage than Johnson, and being in an election that was mostly about how polarizing Trump was, Jorgensen did remarkably well.

          But if you don’t think Republicans need libertarians to win elections, please feel free to continue losing elections.

          1. They lose elections badly too. No class.

            1. Hillary Clinton on line 1.

              DOL, you are beyond stupid. Seriously, grow a brain.

            2. Al Gore on line 2.

          2. And near zero money.

            On this website we had daily barrages from posters begging libertarians to vote for their team.

            Some of us stuck to our guns and supported the LP candidate.

            Some did not.

            1. Some of us stuck to our guns and supported the LP candidate.

              Some did not.

              If LP candidates stuck to their guns (literally and figuratively), I’d vote for them more often.

          3. For having even less name recognition than Johnson, less media coverage than Johnson, and being in an election that was mostly about how polarizing Trump was, Jorgensen did remarkably well.

            “Didn’t have as much name recognition, didn’t fundraise as well, and got fewer votes” = worse candidate, de facto.

            Trump had less money and beat Clinton. Ross Perot had about as much name recognition and did better. Jo was on more Presidential ballots than any other LP candidate than Johnson and did worse. And, again, popular numbers don’t get you into the big chair and Jo, with greater ballot access, got fewer EC votes than Paul or Hospers.

            Jo did remarkably well compared to a theoretically worse candidate who would’ve let a party in decline decline further. I’d absolutely agree that she did better than Harry Browne would have. She probably did better than Paul, Bergland, or Barr would have. Unclear whether she did better than Badnarik would have if he’d run. And I’d need some convincing to say that she did better than Johnson if he’d decided to give it a third run.

  29. As libertarians, we’ll be happy to make common cause with our conservative friends once again when they re-discover liberty as the most pleasing permanent thing of all.

    “We’ll be happy to reunify with the abyss once it realizes that it’s us staring at it and not the other way around.”

    ROFLMAO!

  30. DJT, a political outsider, ran for the GOP against HRC and won. Gary Johnson, a political insider, ran against both of them and came away with 3% of the vote.

    Jo Jorgensen, a political outsider, got fewer votes and a lower percentage of the votes than Johnson and *Conservatives* are the ones who need to do some soul searching and come up with a better strategy?

    *sniggers*

    1. And now dems control the entire government.

      Slow clap.

      1. Of course you slow clap. Because your a DNC troll pretending to be a Libertarian.

      2. I think we finally found Rob Reiner’s troll account.

      3. And you blame Conservatives for not running better (more libertarian) candidates? Who were they going to attract? The vanishing number of LP voters who were, by their own admission, too insufficient in number to spoil the election?

  31. It is not the “conservatives” who need to rethink their priorities, but the libertarians. I say this as someone who is intrinsically more libertarian than conservative.

    The difference between the two parties is gigantic. The Left needs to be stopped. The “conservatives” are willing to compromise the free market to fight massive, imminent dangers. They are not ignorant of the dangers these precedents set; they are simply putting them in perspective.

    Libertarians’ perspective is utter blindness at this point. When the woke are trying to kill you, you steal their gun, property rights be damned.

    1. The “left” (anyone other than trump) seems to be enjoying broad popular support, while the GOP is increasingly appealing to no one other than under educated whites. Maybe the GOP should try having their own policy positions and goals and principles, rather than doing nothing other than grifting from their constituents and hypocritically voting “no” on massive Dem spending bills, and “yes” on massive GOP spending bills.

      1. >>broad popular support

        cute

      2. So you are on board with both major parties voting “yes” on each other’s ridiculous spending bills?

        LOL

        This motherfucker definitely grew up in the middle of a nuclear munitions testing facility.

    2. Yep you gonna sell me down the river on “the left must be stopped”.

      It is not the way to persuade an individualist libertarian.

    3. Libertarians’ perspective is utter blindness at this point. When the woke are trying to kill you, you steal their gun, property rights be damned.

      See the rebuke of ‘revanchism’ above. The “libertarians” don’t want their liberty back if it means they have to vote alongside conservatives. Which, in an effective TPD and in light of the rampant “If my LP vote counted, I’d vote for Biden.” sentiment pretty clearly signifies that they don’t give two shits about getting their liberties back.

      They’re objectively better than the ostrich sticking their head in the sand to ignore the lion that’s going to eat them. They’re sticking their head in the sand because honeybadgers are mean and the lion is going to eat them both anyway.

      1. An ostrich is capable of killing a lion.

  32. Nationalist socialists progressives (what you call “populists”) are NOT “conservatives”. The problem with libertarians that I see every day is that they have no actual understanding of what “conservatism” is as an ideology, and choose to inform their opinions based on what Republicans who CLAIM to be “conservative” say “conservatism” is.

    If Trumpists are in ANY WAY indicative of “conservatives”, then the weirdo wearing a hat (Vermin Supreme) who appeared on a libertarian platform and debated is indicative of “libertarians”. How does that feel? Because it’s exactly what you’re doing when you write garbage that grants, completely unearned, the epithet of “conservatives” to people who lack the intelligence or moral fortitude to even understand what it is.

    “Conservative” is just a word that the populists have latched onto, and Republicans are no more “conservatives” than the Democrats are.

    1. Amen.

    2. If Trumpists are in ANY WAY indicative of “conservatives”, then the weirdo wearing a hat (Vermin Supreme) who appeared on a libertarian platform and debated is indicative of “libertarians”. How does that feel? Because it’s exactly what you’re doing when you write garbage that grants, completely unearned, the epithet of “conservatives” to people who lack the intelligence or moral fortitude to even understand what it is.

      That analogy works pretty well in more than one dimension. Imagine if Vermin Supreme won the Presidency, declared Jerusalem the Capitol of Israel, set up and nearly completely executed the Abraham Accords, stabilized relations with N. Korea and effectively opposed Iran without starting any new wars, and cut spending to NATO and threatened to cut defense spending; and Reason, for years, derided him for being a pussy-grabbing Russian stooge who didn’t tweet within the normal bounds of, uh, internet etiquette.

      Absolutely, Trump did worse than hypothetical Vermin Supreme, but Trump didn’t run on the LP platform. The fact that he did the above and Reason still couldn’t find common ground speaks volumes about “libertarians”, their understanding of conservatism and, chiefly, their ability to think about priorities.

  33. Nationalist socialists progressives (what you call “populists”) are NOT “conservatives”. The problem with libertarians that I see every day is that they have no actual understanding of what “conservatism” is as an ideology, and choose to inform their opinions based on what Republicans who CLAIM to be “conservative” say “conservatism” is. If Trumpists are in ANY WAY indicative of “conservatives”, then the weirdo wearing a hat (Vermin Supreme) who appeared on a libertarian platform and debated is indicative of “libertarians”. How does that feel?

  34. My response to Edward Ring would be, I’m not sure if there’s any evidence that libertarians’ third party vote swung the election to Biden. It’s possible that libertarians’ virtue signal-vote for Biden swung the election to Biden, but that would require someone to do some post-election analysis and as we know, that’s a verboten topic.

    Having said that, I would argue that we are in a bit of an existential crisis. The rift between the parties in the last few years has become a GOP that has largely conceded the old social culture wars of the 80s and the 90s to the left and is merely trying to sustain America’s prominence in the world as an economic power. Some of these approaches are certainly worth debating, tariffs being one particular area. The Democrats on the other hand are now the party of Marxism, the destruction of the nuclear family, the abolition of the police AND the second amendment at the same fucking time, permanent lockdowns, the nationalization of huge swathes of the economy, withering attacks on the first amendment, and a new kind of awful racism in the form of anti-racism: Critical race theory.

    I’ll limp along with a couple of tariffs on some goods from an international mercantilist buccaneer if that means the repudiation of a racist, Marxist ideology which has gone from the fringes of a few obscure academics, to front-and-center mainstream policy and philosophy, foisted upon us by the DNC, the establishment media and every major tech corporation in the country.

    1. Meanwhile Greenhut continues to be a mendacious cunt about it all.

      1. He reminds me of the case of Charles Ng. The feds wanted him for being a horrendous serial killer. So the Canadians picked him up in Canada on some two bit charge.

        They then proceeded to tell the US government they could only get Ng if they agreed to take the death penalty off the table. The feds said “nope, you can keep him.”

        Greenhut pretends he can make demands and upon the Repubs, then place the blame for what the Democrats do off on them when they fail to meet his terms. As if he was ever being honest about what he preferred.

        Nope, Greenhut can learn to deal with who he has effectively elected by not doing anything otherwise.

        Moral twit that he is.

    2. The Democrats on the other hand are now the party of Marxism, the destruction of the nuclear family, the abolition of the police AND the second amendment at the same fucking time

      You left out the part where, in addition to defunding the police and abolishing the 2A, they’re simultaneously striving to expand military roles while executing ideological purges on the same.

      The Biden Administration, in the first 100 days, has done far more to overtly move towards an authoritarian military dictatorship than Trump did in 4 years.

      Trump was a military dictator for wanting to have a tank parade down Pennsylvania Avenue on the 4th of July but Biden is just being Presidential when he uses troops and fencing to lock down the Capitol.

  35. >>something of urgency now

    fuck off you opened the barn door. anyone with a brain knew where the horse was going

  36. “Revanchism”? I’m sure the Left regards smaller government and greater individual liberty as “revanchism” by your definition.

    Serious libertarians need to
    1) Distance themselves from the extremists who constantly talk about lowering the age of consent to 8 or privatizing the public roads;
    2)Distance themselves from the “weed libertarians” whose interest in individual liberty extends no farther than legalized recreational drugs;
    3)Not let themselves get snookered by various identitarian projects which are sold by the Left as being about personal freedom/autonomy, but actually provide justification for larger, more intrusive government. Same-sex marriage is a prime example.

    1. 4) Reiterate their commitment to free and fair elections as being fundamental for individual liberty.

      If Trump’s schemes to steal the election had worked, we would be in a full on civil war right now. Libertarians and so called conservatives today need to let the GOP know that fucking with elections will not be tolerated. We cannot have a debate about taxation or regulation while one side wants to effectively and permanently remove the consequences of elections.

      This makes every political debate into a existential fight. We need to be able to disagree and compromise, and know that we can try to get power back in 2 or 4 years if we do not like the way things are going. Otherwise, we fight. And despite what the Nardz and other violent Trumpists in here will tell you, they are not ready to fight, will be very sorry once it starts, and is not a good or efficient way to organize society.

      1. Ok, himmler.

        1. Does not even make sense.

          But if you think red shirts, proud boyz, and Trump flags are not comparable to brown shirts, Sturmabteilung, and Nazi party flags, then you must be blind.

          And what, by chance, is the only book Trump has admitted to reading in full and has said that he keeps a copy by his bed? That’s right, Mein Kampf.

          And what tactic did Trump just blatantly use that was a favorite of Hitler’s and written about in Mein Kampf? That’s right, the Big Lie. (Ken knows about this one.)

          https://archive.vanityfair.com/article/share/e515a2cd-a51b-4f83-8d61-6ebb9a104e0a

          1. Fuck off, SQRSLY.

      2. Fucking with elections, and you say that while staring down HR 1.

        1. Oh please tell me how many voters have been disenfranchised by democrat policies? Or would be by HR1.

          HR1 is a response to every GOP state legislature in the nation trying to bring us back to 1920. You guys have no fig leaf this time, because the brilliant GOP attorney in the Arizona case said the quiet part out loud. More people voting means fewer GOP victories, and that is the point of these bills, not election security, and this is by their own admission

          1. Oh, hell, if I could rig elections without having anyone suspect they were rigged, I would. It’d be stupid and cowardly not to.

      3. If Trump’s schemes to steal the election had worked, we would be in a full on civil war right now.

        I remain unconvinced that an open Civil War would be worse than a steady march to gas chambers and the Thousand Year Reich.

  37. You want to feel important, but all you’re going to get is totalitarian leftism.
    Does the complete destruction of liberty make you feel important, libertarians?
    Congratulations.

    1. >>You want to feel important, but all you’re going to get is totalitarian leftism.

      hey Greenhut! this. this. this.

    2. To save freedom we must shit on the constitution and install a Nazi-adjacent lunatic as dictator!

      1. See above. When you say “Nazi-adjacent lunatic” do you mean the guy who declared Jerusalem the capitol of Israel, says “Some of them are fine people” about the supposed villains of his dolchstosslegende, and sees “bad actors on both sides”… or the guy who hides in a bunker while his troops occupy the Capitol?

  38. In areas where the Republicans are crazy – eg, national debt – they share their craziness with virtually all Democrats. Thus, for instance, voting Democratic because of the Republican position on the national debt would be…crazy.

    But in many areas, the Dems (and allied RINOs/neocons) are crazy all by themselves, with most Republicans opposing the craziness (at least in theory).

    On the issues where they’re both crazy, it will take a crisis to force the issue – eg the debt – onto the public agenda. So for now it’s pretty much the same as if it weren’t an issue, given how little we can do about it at present.

    That’s the best argument I can think of for voting Republican.

  39. I’ll come back to the GOP when it regains its senses. Here’s how:
    Come up with issues that are important, point out how you would address them, and run a sane candidate.
    I voted for Romney in 2012 but have basically gone 3rd party since the GOP impeached Clinton.

    1. A sane candidate?!! Policy positions>?! What are you, some kind of commie!!?11eleventyone!

      1. Fuck off, SQRSLY.

    2. Voted for Romney! LOL!

    3. In hopes of returning America to the warm, comforting womb of center-left politics.

  40. Perhaps libertarians, republicans or even democratics do not realize what the end game of modern monetary theory is. When hyperinflation finally arrives, in an economy as large as theUS ( where there are assets to take), the printing press is out of ink, confiscatory taxation is the final straw.
    Think New Jersey property taxes that are higher than the mortgage payment on the home. The state owns that asset. It’ll be like that, but for everything.

    Now where is my fucking Covid check.

    1. So what? It’s not as if the property will disappear, just that individual bits and pieces of it will have its ownership scrambled around. Afterward the world will look the same.

  41. “As libertarians, we’ll be happy to make common cause with our conservative friends once again when they re-discover liberty as the most pleasing permanent thing of all.”

    You keep using that word, I do not think you know what it means.

    You want the “liberty” to cross borders without asking permission of the country you wish to enter, and the “liberty” to slaughter your children in the womb.

    Do libertarians favor men having the “liberty” to father children and not support them?

    1. “You want the “liberty” to cross borders without asking permission of the country you wish to enter…”

      If human rights are natural rights that don’t depend on government to grant those rights, wouldn’t the freedom to move about the world to seek opportunity and a better life for oneself and one’s family be independent of whether a government was willing to grant that right? There are reasons to regulate a national border – such as security, trade, to prevent the spread of agricultural pests and diseases and invasive species and so on. That isn’t disputed by anyone that I’ve ever seen talk about immigration. But freedom of movement is seen by many libertarians as a fundamental freedom. If you think that people shouldn’t have the freedom to move about the world, then you can articulate your reasons why a person should have to seek the permission of the government of a country to move there. Persuade those that disagree with you that you are correct.

      “…the “liberty” to slaughter your children in the womb.”

      Perhaps the liberty here is the liberty to not be compelled to provide one’s body to support the life of another for ~9 months at significant risk to one’s own life. The pregnancy related mortality ratio, tracked by the CDC, was 17.0 per 100,000 live births in the U.S. in 2016, and increase over 2007 (15.0). (PRMR is based on all deaths of women during pregnancy or within a year of pregnancy from a pregnancy complication; a chain of events initiated by pregnancy; or the aggravation of an unrelated condition by the physiologic effects of pregnancy.) That is about 1 death for each 6000 live births in what is supposedly the most advanced country in the world. (By the way, the risk is about 3 times higher for non-Hispanic Black women.)

      Are you willing to be connected to someone else for 9 months in order for them to live with a 1 in 6000 chance that you will die because of it? Perhaps you would, if that person would definitely die if you did not. But then, would you accept that you could be forced to take that risk and burden against your will? And what if instead of it being a person, with a conscious mind, hopes, dreams, feelings, people that they love and that know and love them, how about if it is a potential person? If you were told that there was this embryo that had been grown in a lab for a few weeks, and you were told that it needed your body to become a person, would you be okay with being forced to provide it with the opportunity to develop, knowing those risks and burdens to your body?

      The obvious response, naturally, is to appeal to ‘responsibility’. A woman shouldn’t have sex if she’s not willing to be pregnant, you might say. But some that are anti-abortion are at least consistent and wouldn’t make exceptions for rape. After all, if the need is to protect the innocent unborn, then being a product of rape is not the fault of that unborn life and does not cancel its right to live, correct? In my view, this makes any reference to the responsibility of the woman an attempt to dodge the fundamental issue.

      For me, it is clear that well short of birth (with ‘viability’ being a reasonable approximate time frame), a fetus is not yet a full human being with an independent right to life. It is still a potential human being, and a woman has a right to terminate it by terminating her pregnancy because she cannot be forced to take on the physical burdens and inherent risk to her life against her will.

      The legal duty of a person to aid another person, even when that other person’s life is at stake is limited to actions that involve no significant risk to them. We even make selfish decisions in terms of how much we are willing to pay in taxes, insurance premiums, or in charitable donations to support other human beings in dire need. We don’t even require people to be organ donors, when the organs from their dead bodies could instead be used to save lives.

      So, yes, I would say that abortion is a matter of liberty, and that those that want to limit or ban it are against liberty.

  42. Oh great; Now Reason writers are trolling their left-leaning bull-Archy. Why is this ALL ABOUT Josh Hawley? Where’s Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, President Trump?

    There is a difference between the GOP and Josh Hawley and there are many RINO’S in the party who ACT just like Democrats… That doesn’t mean the GOP platform is flawed.

    https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/docs/Resolution_Platform_2020.pdf

    Yet; I cannot think of a SINGLE Democrat who represents the GOP or the USA at all. Perhaps years ago I can think of a couple (i.e. 2) but today Democrats Platform is all about “Fundamentally Changing the Nation” …… into a Nazi Regime of [WE] gang members. Just go check out the DNC platform; how many times it uses the word

  43. Fuck you!

    If your “policies” don’t stand up to logic and science, they aren’t welcome.

  44. This is so laughably argued. Libertarians can’t win elections, and conservatives aren’t part of the open borders crowd. Do you really think we need to drop to your level to get elected? There aren’t enough of you to matter.

  45. If libertarians want to be politically relevant, something they never have been, they need to stop fetishizing “the free market” and understand that “the market” exists as a product of a web of laws and practices and expectations, the goal of which should be bettering the economic and social conditions of society. This is far more complicated and difficult than merely trusting to Hayek or Friedman or Rothbard or the deus ex machina of “the market.” The free market is a powerful instrument to increase productivity, but does not operate in a vacuum and does not always produce good results.

    1. …and they don’t operate by the Power to STEAL either!

    2. You do understand that your economic decisions as an individual are part of the market too, right?

  46. No thanks.
    Are you or your “representatives” threatening someone with an initiation of violence today?

  47. Neither does liberty. It is difficult actually.

    Producing good results has its own consequences. Jeremy Bentham proposed greatest good for the greatest number. Now define ‘good’.

    That has always been the problem for consequentialists. The definition of ‘Good’ is not definable by individual standards.

  48. Even when conservatives opposed much of the most damaging left wing economic program (as you admit) you would not support them. You should not be surprised they stopped giving a shit what you want.

  49. I know MANY conservatives, including myself. NOT ONE OF THEM is in the least way opposed or hostile toward a free market. We ALL want government, inclding their money and infulence, OUT of our lives. We all know absolutely that we, as individual,s wll collectively assure if left unmolested. I don;t know what this chap is on about, thinking we conservatives are opposed to the free market.

  50. I never liked the idea of “owning the libs.” If you own them, you have to feed them, water them, house them, clothe them, give them their flea dip, etc., etc. etc….

  51. This article is airheaded to the point of insanity.

    The left no longer have honest disagreements with anybody. They push ideology that calls all virtuous people racists and white supremacists, and demand (mostly successfully so far) that thugs who loot, pillage, burn, and murder not only get off scot-free, but get biased police protection against any victims defending themselves.

    Either they will destroy civilization, or we will exterminate them. There is no third alternative.

    1. Taste the freeeeedom!

  52. MAGA Conservative is an oxymoron.

    A good line from an old fusionist ally of libertarians:

    “There is a sense in which “anti-Trump conservative” is a redundancy. Like saying ‘anti-fire fire department.'” ~ Jay Nordlinger

    The MAGAts reckless swerve into the big government left lane has them and Dems locked in a loud, dumb, and dangerous road raging fight for that same fast lane of the Road to Serfdom.

  53. There was a time when the Republicans supported free trade, and the Democrats supported free speech.

    Now, both parties are running as far as possible away from any support for free markets and individual liberty.

  54. As bad as both parties are, there is no question that the states with Republican governors are faring better than those run by fascists such as Cuomo, Murphy, Newsom, Whitmer, et al.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.