Media Criticism

Liberal Media Coverage Is Boosting Conservative Nationalists

Plus: Supreme Court to rule on Catholic foster agencies, tech associations sue over social media law in Florida, and more…

|

Big-government conservatives gain from liberal media bias. Much of the U.S. media is accustomed to accepting left-leaning framing of economic policies and arguments—and it's impacting coverage of the conservative civil war over economic principles.

A significant portion of the right—from legislators like Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) to Fox News hosts like Tucker Carlson, traditionally right-leaning magazines like The American Conservative, and all sorts of rank-and-file Republicans—has started to sound very similar to the far left when it comes to private business and government regulation. "In the current environment, when you see somebody railing against how the system is rigged to benefit the rich and powerful at the expense of the working class, you have to double-check to see whether it's coming from somebody on the far left or the populist right," notes Philip Klein at National Review.

They're part of a "growing movement on the right challenging the longstanding commitment of conservatives to limited government and free enterprise"—one that presents "a potentially fatal threat to the conservative movement as it has existed for decades as well as to the cause of limited government," adds Klein. (For more on this, see Stephanie Slade's "Is There a Future for Fusionism?")

And an American press already biased against libertarian views of markets and economic liberty seems more than happy to indulge the narrative of this being a more enlightened, populist, or politically compromising form of conservatism.

Take, for instance, this recent article on antitrust law in Washington Monthly. Republicans who want to join Democrats in expanding antitrust law and using it to punish large or politically disfavored companies are framed as folks wanting "to combat the monopolist corporations that have gained a precarious level of market power as the American economy has become more concentrated than at any other time since the Gilded Age." Those who want to see antitrust law stick to its current strategy of using consumer welfare as a lodestar are framed as "pro-monopoly."

The article is partially a profile of The Alliance on Antitrust, founded by Ashley Baker. The group aims "to align conservatives on the narrow and limited view of antitrust that Robert Bork popularized in the 1970s, called the 'consumer welfare standard,'" notes Washington Monthly. This standard says consumer interests—not breaking up companies just for being big or inducing artificial competition just for the sake of competition—should be the primary concern of antitrust law enforcement. It is not a "pro-monopoly" argument but an argument against excessive government intervention in private industry and for a conception of antitrust enforcement that puts protecting consumers—not any particular economic ideology—first.

"Under the consumer welfare standard, which has anchored U.S. antitrust law for over four decades, consumer harm is measured through tangible economic effects and empirical evidence," notes Tom Herbert, federal affairs manager at Americans for Tax Reform, in a recent opinion piece in The Hill. "Antitrust law under the consumer welfare standard allows business conduct that benefits Americans through lower prices, better quality products and greater access to goods and services."

Just a few years ago, the fact that Republicans would turn against such a standard in favor of a leftist vision of antitrust enforcement would be weird, to put it mildly. But antitrust law is now seen as another tool in fighting the culture war. "Large businesses [are] increasingly viewed as the enforcement arm of the cultural Left," notes Klein, and "the cancel culture and anti-PC debates have become more animating for a lot of conservatives than traditional social issues."

The funny/sad/terrifying thing about all of this is the notion that the right joining the left's pushes for more aggressive antitrust enforcement makes these fights "bipartisan." Both Republicans and Democrats may want to expand government control over internet companies and private business more generally, but they have drastically different ideas of what would happen when they do.

Sure, the Republican/conservative wing that advocates against free markets nods to making big corporations serve the people. And to Democrats/progressives—and media used to their framing—this means increasing taxes and regulations to make businesses cover things like Medicare for All, student loan forgiveness, "infrastructure" spending, and expanded health care benefits. But the Trumpists and others railing against "woke capitalism" and calling for less free markets aren't focused on these things at all; they're focused on making companies seen as too socially liberal pay for their perceived transgressions and side-taking in the culture wars. Their goal is enacting a socially conservative idea of the "common good" through economic sanctions against companies that won't play by their rules.

Neither the right nor the left will be happy when the other side has control of these regulations. But either way, businesses, consumers, and economic liberty will suffer.


FREE MINDS

A big religious freedom ruling is expected from the Supreme Court this week:

The case, known as Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, No. 19-123, is a fight over a city policy that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation. Citing the policy, Philadelphia dropped a contract with a Roman Catholic foster agency that said its beliefs didn't allow it to certify same-sex couples for adoption. The agency, Catholic Social Services, brought a lawsuit alleging that Philadelphia violated its First Amendment religious rights.

The court's opinion will likely be released today.


FREE MARKETS

Tech industry associations NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association are suing over Florida's new law that bans some social media companies from banning politicians. The new law—which has a carveout for platforms owned by Disney and other operators of entertainment complexes or theme parks—says citizens can sue tech companies who "deplatform" any politician for any reason, and allows the Florida Elections Commission to fine companies that do so up to $250,000 per day.

"No one, not even someone who has paid a filing fee to run for office, has a First Amendment right to compel a private actor to carry speech on their private property," says the new suit, filed in the U.S. District for the Northern District of Florida.

"We cannot stand idly by as Florida's lawmakers push unconstitutional bills into law that bring us closer to state-run media and a state-run internet," Carl Szabo, vice president and general counsel of NetChoice, said in a statement. "The law is crony capitalism masquerading as consumer protection. Our lawsuit will stop an attempt by the state of Florida to undermine the First Amendment and force social media sites to carry offensive and harmful political messages."


QUICK HITS

• Biden has promised that his tax crackdown won't mean more audits for people making under $400,000 per year and that it's only intended to catch ultra-rich tax scofflaws, not middle-class folks who make a little cash under the table. But at the same time, his new budget pledges to fund massive new spending initiatives with $717 billion in tax enforcement revenue over the next 10 years.

• New COVID variants are proving more transmissible, threatening to make the pandemic even more catastrophic in parts of the world without widespread vaccination and upping the chances of a new mutation that will not be thwarted by current vaccines.

• The World Health Organization is reclassifying location-based COVID-19 variants by greek letters, reports USA Today. "The United Kingdom variant, called by scientists B.1.1.7, will now be Alpha. B.1.351, the South Africa variant, will now be Beta and the B.1.617.2 variant discovered in India will now be known as Delta."

• Will the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approve a promising new Alzheimer's drug? "By June 7, the FDA is expected to make one of its most important decisions in years: whether to approve the drug for mild cognitive impairment or early-stage dementia caused by Alzheimer's," notes The Washington Post. "It would be the first treatment ever sold to slow the deterioration in brain function caused by the disease, not just to ease symptoms. And it would be the first new Alzheimer's treatment since 2003."

• Will the Supreme Court consider a case on affirmative action in higher education?

• A former state prison in New York may become "a bustling regional hub for growing and processing cannabis."

• Illinois is trying to ban police from lying to child suspects during questioning.

• A bill on its way to Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak, a Democrat, "calls for making the state the first to hold a presidential primary in the 2024 election," reports The Hill. "If signed into law, it would switch Nevada's contest from a caucus to a primary and move the state up in the nation's election calendar, passing the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary for the first slot."

• More than two dozen Cleveland police officers are being sued for allegedly violating the rights of anti–police brutality protesters.

NEXT: Sports Betting Pays Off

Media Criticism Economic Liberty Reason Roundup Consumer Freedom Antitrust Republican Party Conservatism Social Conservatism Fusionism Libertarianism Free Markets Corporations Business and Industry Economics Economic Nationalism

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.

Please to post comments

465 responses to “Liberal Media Coverage Is Boosting Conservative Nationalists

  1. Big-government conservatives gain from liberal media bias.

    Everyone gains from liberal media bias. Also, there is no liberal media bias.

    1. It’s a good thing.

      M. Stewart

      1. Snoop needs to be careful, hanging around violent felons like Martha.

        1. 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 better than regular office job and even a little child can do FD this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
          on this page…..VISIT HERE

    2. The first rule about liberal media bias is that we don’t talk about liberal media bias.

      1. What liberal media bias?

        That’s how that works; gas light the sons of bitches.

    3. Perfectly encapsulated response, as always.

    4. PBS has not given conservatives a continuous share of prime time or a presence on the evening news since Bill Buckley died in 2008. The network added insult to injury by keeping his bindlestiff successors, Buchanan & McLoughlan on life support for a decade, before creating a Woke revival of Firing Line designed to erase the original from memory, and returned David Brooks to the Friday news only after his defection to the New York Times.

      Carlson ended up at Fox after failing to make the grade as a PBS, talking head, but it speaks volumes that they tried to replace George Will with a prep school dropout in the firt place.

  2. They’re part of a “growing movement on the right challenging the longstanding commitment of conservatives to limited government and free enterprise…”

    Or, you know, the rampant cronyism and regulatory capture that we enjoy here in the United States right now.

    1. This was entirely foreseeable when corporations decided to basically abandon political neutrality to go full Woke in order to appeal to mentally ill Gen Zers, academics, the media, and race grifters. However, this has been germinating since TARP, and the alignment of the Tech Trust with the Democrats simply accelerated it. They picked their side, and now they’re finding that some of their formerly biggest defenders put a bullseye on them, too.

      1. A lot of it is due to the expanded HR departments companies were forced into under threats from the EEOC and others under Obama. This let the nu wave of woke professionals insert themselves into all levels of companies.

        1. Lesson from the metoo movement > HR protects the company, NOT the individual.

          For 30 years, we’ve trusted human-resources departments to prevent and address workplace sexual harassment. How’s that working out?

          https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/07/hr-workplace-harrassment-metoo/590644/

          1. “Lesson from the metoo movement > HR protects the company, NOT the individual…”

            You’ll forgive me; lesson from REALITY.
            A company exists to return a profit. If you think the company you work for exists to maximize *your* income/happiness/welfare/etc, you are too stupid to be working there.
            Go back to flipping burgers.

          2. “HR protects the company, NOT the individual.”

            Learn it good, or learn it the hard way; either way, you’re going to learn it, good and hard.

      2. Remember when libertarians believed that if left alone, corporations were essentially libertarian in spirit, with only a desire to appeal to your self interest in service of trying to extract a dollar from you?

        1. They’ve learned:

          Power > profits

        2. > Remember when libertarians believed that if left alone, corporations were essentially libertarian in spirit

          When was this? Libertarians have known that businesses will collude with government ever since Adam Smith told us they would. Every libertarian thinker since then has reinforced that. Don’t confuse us libertarians with the radical propertarians.

          Or to put it another way, these business are NOT being left alone, they are being given the special favors they beg government for. Cronyism, regulatory capture, etc. It’s all just different facets of economic facism: the partnership of state and business.

          The solution to “Big Business” is to make government small enough that it has no special favors to hand out. Big Man To Lead Us is the antithesis of that.

          1. Wow, an actual libertarian comment. Congrats, Brandybuck!

            1. Chipper Morning Wood————————————————————————–
              May.26.2021 at 6:29 pm
              Flag Comment Mute User
              Libertarians have more in common with Marxism than with modern conservatism.

              1. Lol, I forgot about that.
                Just Wow.

                1. It will be posted a lot.

          2. The solution to “Big Business” is to make government small enough that it has no special favors to hand out.

            Which is a fallacy in and of itself, especially at the scale of a typical hyper-complex first-world country.

            1. Haha! You believe this. Explains a lot.

              There is no need to have so many aspects of life controlled from DC. We are United STATES and should behave as such.

              1. You should be easily able to find an example of this sort of 1st-world laissez faire governance to throw back in Red’s face, then.

                Theory doesn’t count. Moreover—and I think this might be his point—any company that gets as powerful as say, Standard Oil back in the day; Alphabet and Citigroup now, ends up running your minarchist Libertopia.

                1. The kind of government they’re envisioning hasn’t existed here since the early 1800s, and certainly not since the Industrial Revolution finally made it over here.

                2. The Dept of Education started as an Office of Education, which was created to collect stats on education in 1867. It remained a minor government agency until after WW2 when the GI Bill greatly expanded its function. Only in 1979 did Carter raise it to Cabinet level, and it has grown in both budget and function ever since. Our system is still much less centralized than most other countries.

                  Education is not a Constitutional power and the DoE should be dissolved.

                  Highways have a similar history, and are less centralized than in most other countries. At least Interstate highways can rightly be considered legitimate functions of the Feds, although other highways are not part of the Fed purview.

                  Donkeys are totalitarians, as you so clearly exemplify.

                  1. Thanks for using two examples that actually proved my point.

              2. Feel free to read “The Collapse of Complex Societies” by Joseph Tainter and then get back to me.

                Literally nothing you believe about small government in a first world country has ever happened. It’s like commies claiming that real communism has never been tried.

              3. You’re confusing what “should” be, with what actually exists though. Have you ever smelt a unicorn fart?

          3. Agree with the analysis but the prescription is really naive. Almost like it is completely ignorant of history. which of course – it is

            1. Feel free to cite anything from actual history, then.

      3. IMHO, some of these corporations “abandoned political neutrality”, not “to appeal to mentally ill Gen Zers …” but to satisfy Democrat politicians telling them to protect their users, by restricting “fake” news via censorship, either for the CEO’s political desires and or for government favors they expect to get for their contribution to the Democrat party.

    2. “The funny/sad/terrifying thing about all of this is the notion that the right joining the left’s pushes for more aggressive antitrust enforcement makes these fights “bipartisan.” Both Republicans and Democrats may want to expand government control over internet companies and private business more generally, but they have drastically different ideas of what would happen when they do.”

      You make the argument that somehow it’s *not* conservative to…oh I don’t know- break up big companies and force competition in the free market?

      That’s some reason doublethink there.

      1. Umm… Free Markets do in fact break collusion amongst large actors in the market. It isn’t about forcing competition, it is about stopping those with large market shares to not enact barriers to entry for future competitors, something we have seen time and time again with Silicon valley companies.

      2. “That’s some reason doublethink there.”

        You should try half of that at least once in your life.

      3. “Forced free markets” is the real doublethink here. Free markets are what results when individual economic actors are left in peace.

        1. ^

      4. ENB’s article is lacking in three areas. First, she offers no libertarian policy proposal in this fight, which is a shame considering it’s my understanding this magazine defends free markets, which it is failing to do by mere criticism. I propose removing Section 230 from social media that censors beyond government mandated removals of posts, and allows users to sue for political discrimination or failure to uphold their contract with users. There’s no good reason to censor speech, as the better approach is more better speech.

        Second, ENB fails to point out the unfairness of how these firms are discriminating against conservatives (and libertarians I might add) for political purposes, and any proposed remedies.

        Third, ENB dives into antitrust law, instead of the Civil Rights Amendment regarding this issue. While it’s a valid question as to whether Facebook, Twitter, Google and others have a “monopoly” or are engaged in anti-competitive behavior, the better question is whether or not businesses providing a “public accommodation” should be able to discriminate based on political beliefs (which include beliefs such as blacks shouldn’t have the vote, we shouldn’t believe Trump, or non-citizens shouldn’t be able to vote here) and whether these social media firms provide public accommodations. IMHO as a libertarian, people should be free to discriminate for any reason, good or bad, regardless of my approval. It’s not that I support bigotry, I prefer bigotry to be dealt with via non-violent civil means, rather than by government force.

    3. Shush it. Corporations can do whatever they want, in a well-coordinated manner, at the exact same time, and to the right people.

      1. Alex Jones is doing well without them; its almost like social media companies aren’t as powerful as everyone thinks they are.

        Get off Twitter, Facebook, etc… your life will be better for it.

        1. I don’t know if I would ever use the word “well” in any sentence involving Alex Jones, but nevertheless, his antics are still out there and Big Tech is no barrier to anybody’s free speech.

          You are so right about Big Tech social media. Real people can both live and live well without it.

          1. Note taken; well financially.

    4. Yes, that, but also look at it in context of “conservatism” as a movement and political movement in the USA. Long term, there’s a “right” of some kind to counteract the “left”; the only questions are what character it will assume and how effective it will be. The “right” hasn’t been too effective lately in pulling toward laissez faire, and the major alternative to that tendency in the political institutions of the “right” — chiefly the GOP — has been a moderating tendency that concedes most or all of the field regarding business or economic interest.

      The “growing movement on the right” this piece is warning about says, “Screw the moderates, let’s get something going.” It’s not as if they’re getting in the way of some existing motion toward laissez faire; instead it’s about capturing some more public sentiment for change. Hopefully that change will include some degree of deregulation and fiscal restraint, which have been absent or mostly absent. It may include other factors which are mostly neither here nor there as affect individual liberty overall, but this is about logrolling for the good guys for once: “giving” on this that we really don’t care about, while “getting” backing for something good.

  3. Illinois is trying to ban police from lying to child suspects during questioning.

    Even if the kid asks about Santa?!

    1. Better Santa than asking about the Marxism n BLM.

      1. I thought the Marxists banned Santa. Did BLM, too?

        1. No, Marxists coopted Santa and think society should run like Santa operates every day of the year. “You better watch out…”

    2. What are you saying about Santa?!

      1. You believe in him just like you do fire extinguishers.

      2. LOL, we already have terms like “sock puppet”. We need a term for people like JesseAz who keep posting comments in reply to someone who has muted them: think I’ll use “gnat”.

        1. We already have a word for someone not open to discussion because their views are so fragile. Many in fact.

          1. Why won’t you just let me silence you?

            1. Muting obviously wasn’t the great censorship success that White Mike had hoped.

        2. “LOL, we already have terms like “sock puppet”…”

          No “LOL”; we already have terms like “fucking, lying, lefty shit piles”, of which you are one.
          Fuck off and die.

        3. We probably need a term for people like White Mike who sock, shitpost, gaslight and troll for fifty-cents in the… wait a second.

    3. Yes, Cops should tell kids and the whole world the truth about Santa. There’d be a lot fewer riots and stampedes in stores and malls over the latest hot new toy.

      1. This past Christmas, I could not get my hands on a Nintendo Switch for Christmas, so I told my kid that Nintendo owns the trademark for the Switch, so elves aren’t legally allowed to make them at the North Pole, or it would be a fake. Santa orders the Switches from Nintendo and then delivers them. In fact, due to rapid technological advances, most toys aren’t really made at the North Pole, because elves aren’t trained in computer science and tech, and Santa’s old school workshop isn’t really set up for it anyway. Back when Santa started his gig, there were WAY fewer kids in the world, but now there are billions, so he just doesn’t have the manpower or the workspace to make billions of toys at the North Pole. He has contracts with manufacturers to order the toys and then he distributes them worldwide on Christmas, but he has the copyright on the Santa name, so the companies can’t just write him out of Christmas. But, due to COVID, Nintendo wasn’t able to make enough Switches for everyone who wanted one, so she should have something else in mind just in case the Fat Man couldn’t make it happen this year.

        1. Did you tell your kid who Santa subcontracts with for actual toy purchase, wrapping and delivery?

        2. How does Santa compensate his workers?
          Are they actually free to leave at anytime?

        3. I see you left out all of the details on Santa’s diversity and inclusion policies. Typical fascist.

          1. Giants are people too!

          2. Let’s not kid ourselves. The island of the misfit toys is just a metaphor for Uighurs. Bob in the box is in a work training and education program.

  4. Neither the right nor the left will be happy when the other side has control of these regulations.

    We could always take out the lowest common denominator.

    1. Well I for one am glad we got rid of the first president in a century to reduce federal regulations and replaced him with one promising massive regulation, right Boehm?

      1. Your history is suspect. Carter cut far far more regulations. For all the bluster of his diehard fans, Trump didn’t really cut all that much.

        1. You know, you leftists keep posting this revisionist history, and despite me having debunked it multiple times, you persist. Carter only began cutting regulations as he was entering the election year, and even then it was response based on state actions and Reagan.

          Here, educate yourself.

          https://mises.org/library/rethinking-carter

        2. Reformations you credit with Carter even started under Nixon, not under Carter.

          1. Yeah, that Nixon was all about deregulation.

            1. He wasn’t but the regulations often attributed to Carter fell along the lines Nixon actually started, see link.

        3. On top of that, Carter created both the DoEd and the DoE. That alone is far more than Trump ever did.

          Do you just buy into any old narrative?

          1. But Carter wore sweaters. And never sent out mean tweets.

            1. I’ve had my thermostat set to ‘Carter’ ever since.

            2. And he heard us, man! He heard us!

              1. But did he feel our pain, and tell us that yes, we can?

        4. “…Carter cut far far more regulations..”

          No, he didn’t, TDS-addled shit.

          1. But Broooo! Homebrew, Bro!

    2. We could just get rid of antitrust laws, since they never rationally defined what “restraint of trade” was in the first place and are thus Unconstitutional ex post facto laws.

      And instead of focusing on the private pseudo-monopolies which are Big Tech companies who already have competition, why not break up government-ran and government-enforced real monopolies, such as The U.S. Post Office, The Tennessee Valley Authority, and every utility monopoly in this country, including that rickety-ass utility monopoly in Texas that left people in the damn cold this past Winter?

      And let’s finish the job of breaking the monopolistic stranglehold that OPEC and Islamofascists in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and elsewhere have over our oil supply and Drill, Baby, Drill! for our own oil, shale, Uranium, and Thorium and become energy independent!

      (Not talking to you here, Fist, but to everyone else:)

      Free the U.S.A., you dumb sons o’ bitches!

      1. WHY WON’T YOU TALK TO ME?

        1. Fret not, Fist. You’re not in with the sons o’ bitches who’ve wrecked and enslaved my U.S.A. I just wanted you to know before I went off.

          You can’t do any damage in The Great White North anyway, so basically, you good kid! 🙂

      2. I’m with you on the Post Office and TVA, but electricity ISOs that run the grid are only regulatory and own no power-producing assets; “breaking them up” would be a very bad idea.

        1. No need to break them up, just remove the power of States to grant utility monopolies and allow multiple power companies to exist in the same jurisdiction and run power lines across State lines to any place they can have clearance from private property owners.

          Also, allow big companies, planned communities, cooperatives, and individuals the option of having their own off-grid power sources as long as they don’t involve polluting their neighbors.

          No added trick laws required, just repealing the ones we have.

      3. ^

  5. Philadelphia dropped a contract with a Roman Catholic foster agency that said its beliefs didn’t allow it to certify same-sex couples for adoption. The agency, Catholic Social Services, brought a lawsuit alleging that Philadelphia violated its First Amendment religious rights.

    “We must close the ‘religion’ loophole!”

    1. It is better that 100 kids remain in foster care than one kid go to a religious family.

      1. Better to abort 100 kids than take the chance.

        1. It does reduce crime.

          1. Now you’re getting it.

          2. Progressives for precrime capital punishment.

    2. How in the world is getting or not getting a contract with a government entity a “religious freedom” issue?

      And just why is the Roman Catholic Church, of all religious bodies, wanting a government contract?

      I’ve heard it alleged by American Atheists in the Nineties that The Vatican has more wealth than the 10 biggest U.S. Corporations (though with notorious Vatican financial secrecy, probably no one really knows exactly how much The Vatican has.)

      The Vatican and The Roman Catholic Church can do anything it wants without a government contract, and so can any other religious body that’s bound and determined to use it’s special tax-exempt status to advantage.

      I just wish all individuals regardless of belief or non-belief were equally tax-exempt. That’s worth imagining!

      1. “And just why is the Roman Catholic Church, of all religious bodies, wanting a government contract?”

        The Catholic Church is not interested in government contracts in general, but have a lot of interest in getting children adopted into Catholic families. So, it’s this specific type of contract.

        1. Catholic Charities and its $5 billion+ in revenue conflicts with the idea that “the Catholic Church is not interested in government contracts in general”.

          They have to make up for dwindling church attendance and donations somewhere.

      2. “And just why is the Roman Catholic Church, of all religious bodies, wanting a government contract?”

        Because the government has a monopoly on the authority to allow adoption.

      3. Why is the government involved in adoption at all?

        1. For the children. Obviously.

  6. Hanumangarhi Temple Ayodhya Timings, Directions, Information

    Hanumangarhi Temple Ayodhya timings, direction, information, darshan timings, aarti timings. Also check the facilities near the temple.

    https://indiaongo.in/religious-places/hanumangarhi-temple-ayodhya/

    1. No, Swami, you don’t need a government contract either.

  7. “A significant portion of the right … has started to sound very similar to the far left when it comes to private business and government regulation.”

    Exactly the point I’ve been making for years. The vile ideology known as “economic populism” — which is effectively the opposite of Koch / Reason libertarianism — has taken over the Republican Party.

    Admittedly, Democratic politicians typically campaign on leftist economics: “drinking billionaire tears,” “making the rich pay their fair share,” and so on. But OpenBordersLiberal-tarian’s First Law states that this doesn’t matter. Because once they attain power, Democrats invariably govern in the interests of billionaires. Which is why Koch-funded libertarians overwhelmingly endorsed Biden.

    #InDefenseOfBillionaires

    1. I mean, just look at how well the richest people on the planet are doing under the Biden Administration. Reason.com’s benefactor Charles Koch is up over $7 billion this year. Gates, Buffett, Zuckerberg, Page, Brin, and Ellison have all gained between $12 billion and $25 billion. These are the economic conditions that Koch / Reason libertarianism promotes. And they will only happen with Democrats in charge.

      #LibertariansForBiden

    2. And what is OBLs Second law?

      C’mon man, I’m ready to move on from this lesson.

  8. Covid-19 variants to be given Greek alphabet names to avoid stigma

    , except to the Greeks.

    1. The United Kingdom variant, called by scientists B.1.1.7, will now be Alpha. B.1.351, the South Africa variant, will now be Beta and the B.1.617.2 variant discovered in India will now be known as Delta.”

      3 incidents of stigma.

    2. The south African variant will now be
      Nu, iota, gamma, gamma, epsilon, rho

      1. Don’t give those viruses slve names! Let them have names like Abdul or Aisha. /sarc

        1. Slave names, that is. (Either I don’t type well or Skynet has gone Woke too.

          1. I assumed you thought those were Slavic names.

            1. So I understand, the etymology of the term “slave” is from the term “Slav,” so there’s that. But no, I knew they letters descrbed above were Greek.

              I was more making fun of Afrocentrists calling European names “slave names,” but not Arabic or African names, even if the latter names were used by slavers as well.

              And if I were Johnny Carson right now, I would be bringing the house down explaining the joke. Only he could get away with that. 😉

              1. And oddly enough, in Arabic, the “Abd” of “Abdul” means “slave/servant” (“Abdul” meaning “servant of the,” typically combined with names of God – Abdullah, Abdul Aziz, Abdul Rahman, etc.).

                “Don’t call me a slave name like Frank or Carl, call me Abdul Malik.”

                1. And “Abd” also means “black” as well as “slave,” so racism is baked right into the Arabic language, making the irony even more sublimely ridiculous.

              2. Might as well explain both of our jokes then.

    3. To think Princeton finally Woke up and banned requirements to learn Greek and latin… and now right back to white slavery.

    4. This is how viruses always work – remember there is no ‘goal’ for any virus. They are not anthropomorphic. Those that kill the host fail to spread fast because dead people don’t get around much. The viruses that spread around a lot are more transmissible but less deadly, eventually to the level of a cold or mild flu.
      The really deadly ones disappear, which is why not a lot of people are dying of the 1918 flu anymore.

      1. True, but isn’t it also true that the really deadly ones can kill quite a few people on their way to burning out?

        1. Governments have killed lots of people as well.

        2. Didn’t Kurrigan say it was better to burn out then fade away?

          Seems logical though.

          1. I thought that was Def Leppard.

          2. That was Neil Young.

          3. There can be only one!

      2. dead people don’t get around much.

        Except to vote, amirite?

    5. The Greek variant will be constructed from Cyrillic script because, you know, Russia is bad.

    6. There’s got to be a “The Greeks Don’t Want No Freaks” joke out there.

  9. A big religious freedom ruling is expected from the Supreme Court this week…

    DURING RAINBOW FLAG MONTH?

    1. Dammit, Fist! You ruined the surprise!

    2. The rainbow flag was appropriated from electrical engineering. Where’s daveca?

      1. Hippies planted it at one point as well.

      2. According to some Fundamentalist Christians, the Rainbow Flag was appropriated from JHVH-1 His-Own-Self.

        Of course, if JHVH-1 supposedly created the Universe, everything we use was also “appropriated” from him and it’s JHVH-1’s world and we just live in it.

        1. Hmm, before JHVH-1 created rainbows, were the laws of physics for light refracting through water different?

          OK, that was a facetious question, but more seriously, did Isaac Newton, a very religious man, say anything in the way of resolving his discovery of laws of refraction with the Noah’s ark story?

          1. The standard argument, going back to Bishop Bradwardine, is that God’s decisions, from our perspective, are always-already made. I.e. God didn’t need to change the way that rainbows work in order for rainbows to carry a message for humanity, since God always-already knew that humanity would fall.

            Newton, a Deist, thought of Bible stories as being primarily literary, and AFAIK didn’t have much interest in the question of the literal truth of biblical narratives. St. Augustine, back in the very early fourth century, had already pointed out that a great deal of the Bible is very obviously not literal. Biblical literalism is a relatively modern feature of your more anti-intellectual strains of Protestantism.

            As Augustine points out, for example, “six days of creation” can’t really mean six literal days as we think of them, since the sun and moon weren’t created until the fourth day.

            1. Thanks!

              1. I have no idea why this lying pile of lefty shit is tolerated by a single civil response.
                Fuck off and die, TDS-addled asshole.

                1. Relax, Sevo, have some Sanka.

                  Mike didn’t mention Mr. “Happy Memorial Day” here. And I’m not deranged by him either, especially since he’s gone. Out with the old Hell and in with the fresh Hell! Block! Flow! Good! Bad! All Good Things!

                  1. I repeat: I have no idea why anyone treats this lying piece civilly. And, no, Sanka does not improve my tolerance for l;lying pieces of shit; their aim is to limit my freedoms and they are due nothing civil whatsoever.

            2. The Noah story began with God thinking that his own creation was a mistake. Secular worldly product liability law would have much to say on this subject.

              And, of course, if reading The Holy Bible literally makes no sense, which and whose interpretation should we use? And why? And wouldn’t this imply some authority outside The Holy Bible to answer these questions?

              I’m just glad there are better texts and better ways of finding answers to questions on the Universe and that Rainbows have no “TM” on them so they can mean anything we want.

          2. Not facetious at all. Very valid to ask, along with other questions that render The Holy Bible as absurd nonsense.

        2. Is that a new handle for Obama?

          1. Nah. Jehoviah never won a Nobel Peace Prize. 😉

            1. Of course, Obama got the Nobel Peace Prizebefore he even did anything to earn it and he subsequently got the U.S. more embroiled in Afghanistan and Iraq, along with Somalia, Libya, and Yemen. So, to quote Bart Simpson’s Thanksgiving Day Grace: “Thanks for nothing!”

              1. He was _that_ good! 😉

                1. Nobody thinks you’re funny, even if you add wink emojis to the end of your “jokes”.

          2. Only to those who regarded Obama as “The One.” Not me by any means.

  10. Much of the U.S. media is accustomed to accepting left-leaning framing of economic policies and arguments

    Hey reason… youre standing in front of a mirror.

    1. has started to sound very similar to the far left when it comes to private business and government regulation.

      Hey! More false equivalency. You don’t get a liability waiver if you dont respect free speech vs shut downal opposing speech.

      To pretend the two sides are even near equivalent is insane. One is pushing CRT and socialism through a corporate backed social credit score, the other is simply saying stop doing that.

      1. But they both Left and Right want people in Big Tech to be controlled and like Lazarus Long, I have no such desire. Now go get your own damn sugar and get off my lawn!

    2. “growing movement on the right challenging the longstanding commitment of conservatives to limited government and free enterprise”

      This principle isn’t happy and blissful ignorance as politics and corporations merge into a state of near fascist collusion.

      Power structures all need boundaries. Guiding overwhelming governmental power through corporations does shit like debtors prisons and such. Free markets is an absence of collusion, not ignoring the collusion currently present.

    3. Just a few years ago, the fact that Republicans would turn against such a standard in favor of a leftist vision of antitrust enforcement would be weird,

      Well good thing that isn’t happening. One side is again using anti trust to influence behaviors such as getting SV to shut down political speech, the other is using it to reduce over capitalized market shares and collusion between markets to stop the shutting down of speech.

      Is reason completely ignorant to reality? Do they truly believe there is no market collusion currently going on????

      1. Yes, but it’s for your own good.

  11. $717 billion in tax enforcement revenue

    “You know, we could save the taxpayer big bucks by simplifying the tax coHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!”

  12. “New COVID variants are proving more transmissible, threatening to make the pandemic even more catastrophic in parts of the world without widespread vaccination and upping the chances of a new mutation that will not be thwarted by current vaccines.”

    The Koch / Reason libertarian solution? Simple! Just encourage the entire populations of the affected countries to immigrate to the US. Biden has already shut down the virus here like he promised during the campaign — plus those immigrants will provide cost-effective labor for billionaire employers like our benefactor Charles Koch.

    #OpenBorders
    #(EspeciallyDuringAPandemic)

    1. Just encourage the entire populations of the affected countries to immigrate to the US.

      “If you can make it to Daytona, you’re guaranteed a shot for a better life!”

  13. Ironically ‘Big Gov’ empowered ‘Big Corp’ monopolies by “Research” grants, ridiculously lengthen-ed Patient and Copyright law or most notably regulating EVERYONE-ELSE out of every single free-market throwing one brick at a time at them.

    Step #1 for start-up companies — Hire an entire team ‘HR’ to battle the cultist Gov-Guns, a ‘Research’ team to battle the *theft* IRS Gov-Guns, and a team of Paper-Pushers to run truck loads of Red-Tape demanded by Gov-Guns.

    Tired of Big Corp monopolies??? LET THE PEOPLE work without one.

    1. … The only ‘REAL’ monopoly in the USA is National Gov-Guns. There is ONLY ONE. Crony Socialism is by it’s own threatening nature a well-backed (Gov-Guns) monopoly.

      All others are just a result of hard-work and well-to-do service. *EARNING* what one has isn’t a “monopoly”.

  14. New COVID variants are proving more transmissible, threatening to make the pandemic even more catastrophic in parts of the world without widespread vaccination and upping the chances of a new mutation that will not be thwarted by current vaccines.

    Everyone continue to panic and do what your government says!!!

    1. If Fauci said this, it’s not true.

      1. Fauci has told so many lies, he doesn’t know which one is true anymore.

  15. The press/media can’t even do 1984 right. Compare and contrast this USA Today 2020 Fact Check on the Tulsa Race Riot with reporting this year, including USA Today!

    Serious Ministry of Truth FAIL.

  16. …says citizens can sue tech companies who “deplatform” any politician for any reason, and allows the Florida Elections Commission to fine companies that do so up to $250,000 per day.

    And incumbents are okay with this?

    1. Doesn’t matter, unconstitutional on its face.

  17. There were a zillion fauxtrage articles and tweets from Trump allies, claiming tear gas wasn’t used and attacking journalists who said it was.

    Suddenly truth isn’t subjective in journalism?

    1. This is the important story. Pepper rounds vs tear gas. Not trump russia, Wuhan labs, Capitol insurrection murders, etc. What helps the left not be seen as complete liars.

      1. What difference, at this point, does it make?

  18. …his new budget pledges to fund massive new spending initiatives with $717 billion in tax enforcement revenue over the next 10 years.

    Relax. That’s simply to better target political enemies.

    1. Democrats would never do anything like that.

  19. They’re part of a “growing movement on the right challenging the longstanding commitment of conservatives to limited government and free enterprise”—one that presents “a potentially fatal threat to the conservative movement as it has existed for decades as well as to the cause of limited government,”

    Challenging the idea that there’s any commitment at all by “conservatives” to limited government and free enterprise – and a fatal threat to the conservative movement as it has existed for decades is a good thing when you consider what exactly it has accomplished in all that time. The Georges Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell – fuck the lot of those corrupt bastard RINO’s.

    1. ^Well Said! Exactly….

    2. Agreed, and Josh Hawley, Sebastian Gorka, Charlie Kirk, Tucker Carlson (never trust a man with two last names and no surname,) Gavin Newsome, Rod Dreher, and the whole Alt-Right/Alt-Light,/ReligiCon/SoCon/CrunchyCon crowd are taking so-called “Conservatism” from bad to worse!

      And Sohrab Ahmari? Stay more than six feet away from him! That motherfucker would turn on a Dime and shiv anybody in a minute!

  20. https://news.yahoo.com/viral-tiktok-video-brought-chaos-120033246.html

    A viral TikTok video brought chaos to Huntington Beach. Officials fear it’s just the beginning

    ‘ “It goes to the fact that government isn’t structured to deal with an amorphous entity of folks,” Kalmick said. “This wasn’t like a concert where we could talk to a promoter and issue a permit. When you have folks who don’t have a command or control structure, how does a city or police department manage that? I’m just not sure.”’

    So, government can’t deal with an amorphous entity of folks? Like, their job?

    I’m just glad they confess that they are not, in fact, the reason we have an orderly society. They couldn’t do that if they tried.

    1. Partygoers blasted fireworks into a mob in the middle of Pacific Coast Highway, jumped on police cars, scaled palm trees and flag poles and leapt from the pier into throngs of people below to crowd-surf. A window at CVS was smashed, businesses were tagged with graffiti, and the roof of Lifeguard Tower 13 collapsed after it was scaled.

      All due entirely to TikTok.

    2. Really, the only difference between this and a late 2000s flash mob that did the Thriller dance or robbed a 7-11 is the scale.

    3. Most crowds are composed of individuals.

  21. New COVID variants are proving more transmissible, threatening to make the pandemic even more catastrophic in parts of the world without widespread vaccination and upping the chances of a new mutation that will not be thwarted by current vaccines.

    ‘Dying from’ and ‘dying with’ are going to have to be supplemented with ‘dying near’ numbers.

    1. I was told SleepyJoe stopped the virus in its tracks.

    2. Don’t forget ‘dying since’.

  22. “Just a few years ago, the fact that Republicans would turn against such a standard in favor of a leftist vision of antitrust enforcement would be weird, to put it mildly. But antitrust law is now seen as another tool in fighting the culture war.”

    To a certain extent, I blame the idealism of conservatives for this. It’s one of the things that makes me like conservatives–unlike progressives, when you point out that something is unconstitutional to a conservative, they care about that.

    However, they’re also still prone to believing that the government will work for them, that the government would still be the path to the greater good, if only the people running things were honest and followed the Constitution and the law. And sometimes, that is not appropriate.

    There is no one–in any position of authority–anywhere in our government, who is about to stick up for the right of conservatives to oppose immigration, oppose abortion, oppose affirmative action, oppose gay marriage, etc. online, certainly not after people who say such things are considered xenophobic, misogynistic, racist, and homophobic respectively.

    What’s about to happen with antitrust and Section 230 isn’t even really a function of the law. It’s a function of the Democrats controlling the government to the extent that they wish to control it. When they revoke liability protections for social media, it will only be to enforce progressive speech codes on xenophobia, misogyny, racism, homophobia, and “disinformation”, by which they mean comments that challenge media narratives like Dr. Fauci and Hunter Biden’s emails.

    Those social media companies that sign on to the consent decrees, and play ball with those speech codes by their own assent, won’t be subject to liability, just like when the cigarette companies, one by one, signed away their right to advertise in exchange for liability protections. On the issue of reforming the system, I know conservatives mean well, but when they support antitrust against Big Tech, they are carrying lumber for the progressives–who are in the midst of building a gallows from which to hang conservatives.

    1. There were ways to combat what the progressives want to do to online speech forever, but that largely had to do with Trump being in the White House when these antitrust cases come to a head with consent decrees–and the Republicans controlling one of the chambers in Congress. The consent decrees (which are the ultimate objective of almost every antitrust case) will now be negotiated by the radicals in the Biden administration, and approval for radically changing the culture online will only require the support of one Republican in the senate–assuming the Senate doesn’t get rid of the filibuster before then.

      Other than that, this is pretty much a dead issue. It was decided in November of 2020 and the runoff Senate elections in January of 2021. I suspect some of our libertarian journalists here are having trouble coming to terms with the fact that Trump losing the election probably meant the end of free speech online, but that’s the gist of it. The touchdown was scored months ago, and the Democrats are just running out the clock.

      It won’t really matter what conservatives want on this issue anymore–not once the antitrust cases are decided on consent decrees–and that will happen sometimes before the Midterms of 2022, the Big Tech social media companies themselves will see to that. In other words, a future Republican president or a future Republican Congress won’t be able to revise and fix it after the consent decrees happen. The game is over, and it’s been over since November of 2020.

      1. I suspect some of our libertarian journalists here are having trouble coming to terms with the fact that Trump losing the election probably meant the end of free speech online, but that’s the gist of it.

        This is a bit generous. I suspect most won’t realize the implications of voting Trump out for mean tweets until they’re put up against the wall.

        1. Well, they won’t admit it, but I think they know.

          Clearly, though, to whatever extent a journalist contributed to Trump’s loss, they also contributed to the demise of free speech online.

          They wouldn’t argue about it if they didn’t think it still mattered, but it doesn’t. Certainly, no one in power, in the Democratic Party, is about to stand up for the standards of free speech. The Democrats are now more or less officially of the opinion that free speech online is inherently racist. It’s game over for them.

          It’s a dead issue.

          We’re waiting for the Democrats to kick the extra point, and the only question is if the Republican will come out of the locker room and line up for the kick. It’s over. They keep talking about it as if the game weren’t over, but it is. They keep talking about what the policy should be–despite the fact that there isn’t anyone in charge of the policy that cares what we or anyone else thinks.

          Maybe we should have one of these journalists write up a story about what can be done to save speech online. When the consent decrees are negotiated, and Section 230 is repealed, and the only way to get liability protection is by signing onto the same consent decrees that Facebook and Google negotiated with the FTC and the Justice Department, then what are we going to do? How do you plan to get rid of that? Future elections won’t do it. New presidents can’t change that. They assented, the courts signed off, and that’s it.

          Who’s going to pass a bill in the House to let tobacco companies advertise again? Who’s going to vote for that in the Senate? Who’s going to revoke the tobacco companies’ liability protection? Who’s going to run for president on the basis of opening that can of worms again?

          It’s the same thing.

          1. Analogy fail: You can’t run out any clock between the touchdown and the extra point.

            1. He didn’t say anything about the clock. Whether they send someone out to spike the football or stay in the locker rooms and forfeit in protest, the game is over.

              1. “The touchdown was scored months ago, and the Democrats are just running out the clock.”

                1. The metaphor changed in the retelling.

                  They’re running out the clock? Okay, but it’s probably worse than that, now that I think of it–so the Democrats are waiting for the Republicans to come back out of the locker room so they can kick the extra point.

                  That’s more like it.

                  The negotiation of the consent decrees is the important thing, and the Biden administration just made the author of the House Democrats’ break up plan for Facebook to be commission at the FTC–the entity that’s brought the antitrust case against Facebook.

                  “Khan previously served as counsel to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law, where she helped lead the Subcommittee’s investigation into digital markets”

                  —-White House

                  “President Biden Announces his Intent to Nominate Lina Khan for Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission”

                  https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/22/president-biden-announces-his-intent-to-nominate-lina-khan-for-commissioner-of-the-federal-trade-commission/

                  She was the lead author on the House Democrats’ report on how to break up the Big Tech social media companies that was published in October of 2020. Her justifications for breaking them up in that report included the observations that they were tolerating “misinformation” on their platforms.

                  Once Biden won and the Democrats took the senate, this was over. They’re just negotiating the terms of the consent decree. Zuckerberg and company want to make sure it’s terms that they like. In the meantime, they’re banning any speech that Biden and the Democrats call “misinformation” or “disinformation” or whatever, and they’re figuring out how to present this to a federal judge who will sign off on it–before the Republican can take control of the House.

                  They still have to kick the extra point, but the only question is whether they’ll do it with the Republicans on the field or off the field. Either way, it’s a done deal. It was done in November. It was done in January. There’s no one listening to our arguments anymore. The way to prevent this outcome was during the last election, and divided government lost. We’re now under a one party government, and the only question is whether they’re going to kick the extra point with the Republicans on the field or in the locker room.

                2. Libertarians are “The Jester on the sidelines in a cast.”

          2. “Clearly, though, to whatever extent a journalist contributed to Trump’s loss, they also contributed to the demise of free speech online.”

            Ken, in your highly logical analysis, does the Constitutional right of free speech include the right of a private party not to host or publish or print speech it does not agree with? If so, is it not the case that conservatives are also threatening Americans’ right of free speech?

            1. Is it their right to receive government liability waivers? The oddest thing here is that you are the one actually arguing for government intervention.

            2. Ken, in your highly logical analysis, does the Constitutional right of free speech include the right of a private party not to host or publish or print speech it does not agree with?

              Of course, unless they explicitly promised to publish or print your speech in order to get you to do business with them.

              Then, no.

              1. Which they did, while profiting off your information and content.

      2. I still sense some irony in the flip of conservatives, who may think more about constitutionality but certainly suspected social freedoms (at least when I was young), and liberals, who were all about more freedom and less government. New-age liberalism now seems focused on reducing social freedom as much as any old conservative ever did.

        1. The left have basically become prudes. It’s not over sexual stuff, but they’ve got Lucy and Ricky sleeping in separate beds in their own way–and for the same reasons. Can’t have people thinking naughty behavior is okay!

          1. Puritans.

          2. “Ha!-Ah!Ah!Ah!Ah! Ha!-Ah!Ah!Ah!Ah! Ooh! It’s just so ridiculous! Hey, Fred! How would you like to fuck me up the ass?”

            Sorry, you brought back some hilarious Eddie Murphy moments there!

    2. “…unlike progressives, when you point out that something is unconstitutional to a conservative, they care about that.”

      That’s why, when it was pointed out to Trump that the Constitution does not grant the Vice President power to use his discretion to ignore electoral votes from certain states, Trump took pause and seriously reconsidered his position on the matter. Because Trump is the paragon of what a conservative should be, unlike those RINOs, like, say, George Will.

      1. You seem to always cite conservatives who attack other conservatives. Weird consistency.

    3. “There is no one–in any position of authority–anywhere in our government, who is about to stick up for the right of conservatives to oppose immigration, oppose abortion, oppose affirmative action, oppose gay marriage, etc. online, certainly not after people who say such things are considered xenophobic, misogynistic, racist, and homophobic respectively.”

      https://reason.com/2021/05/24/section-230-haters-arent-going-away/

      1. So you support government carve outs for liability protection for favored industries. I thought you were against government favoritism… or do you just claim that as a lie?

      2. People in positions of authority mentioned in this article who are sticking up for the right of conservatives:
        Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.)
        Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R–Tenn.)
        Rep. Gregory Steube (R–Fla.)
        Rep. Ted Budd (R–N.C.)

        Also, not mentioned in the article: Matt Gaetz (R-FL 1st District)

        Sorry to contradict the conservatives-as-victims narrative.

        1. The people asking to refine a government liability waiver to be one that includes propagating free speech idealism in return for said waivers.

        2. How much authority do representatives in the minority party have when Pelosi is running the majority party Dee?

          Or are you displaying your ignorance of how our federal government works again?

    4. Again, one side wishes to regulate because there’s too much censorship, the other side because there’s too little. And again, the side that thinks there’s “too much” is what lights up the Reason staff.

  23. The United Kingdom variant, called by scientists B.1.1.7, will now be Alpha.

    Yeah, maybe a couple centuries ago.

  24. Will the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approve a promising new Alzheimer’s drug?

    Do we really want the elderly to be aware that they’re not able to see their families due to a new COVID variant?

    1. LOL

      Perhaps Science will develop a variant of the drug that blocks *that* awareness.

  25. A former state prison in New York may become “a bustling regional hub for growing and processing cannabis.”

    DRUGS IN A PRISON?

  26. Something strange continues to happen in Georgia’s new absentee ballot audit…

    A judge there has ordered high resolution digital copies of all ballots to be made foe the audit. At the last minute democeats sued to stop the scanning of ballots. Then this happened.

    On Saturday, May 29, at approximately 4:30, an alarm went off at the warehouse facility where the original ballots are stored in a locked room Security responded — more on that below — and found the warehouse door unlocked and open. The storage location is at 1365 English Street, in Atlanta, which is the address for the “Fulton County Election Preparation Center.”

    Now why is this strange? Police have been stationed in the parking lot of the center to monitor anyone entering or exiting in preparation for the audit. Apparently this spooked democrats who went to a judge to force the police to move away from the building out of “fear and intimidation” from officers in their patrol car.

    Back on May 21, not confident in the security provided by Fulton County, Cheeley had arranged for off-duty police to sit in police vehicles and watch over the storage location. Cheeley claims Fulton County attorneys complained to Judge Amero that the off-duty police officers were “intimidating” Fulton County Election Board workers because they were parked in the parking lot of the county building. He claimed the Fulton County officials told the judge they might arrest the off-duty officers for “trespassing”.

    The judge conceded and asked the officers to remain on a public street. Then I expectantly the officers were called away from the building when half an hour later the alarms in the building went off.

    But on Saturday, May 29, both vehicles left the parking lot at 4:00 p.m. and were gone for two hours. At 4:30, the alarm went off.

    This happened not once… but twice.

    May 22 and May 29 were both Saturdays, and the alarm went off both days.

    https://redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2021/05/31/election-officials-in-fulton-county-georgia-sure-act-like-they-have-something-to-hide-n389409

    1. I was assured, without evidence, that any election fraud conspiracy theories had been debunked.

    2. Only two days, so not widespread evidence of alarms.

  27. Illinois is trying to ban police from lying to child suspects during questioning.

    First they start frowning on lobbing grenades into their cribs, now they’re taking away lying to a perpling? Is there going to be anything left in the law enforcement toolbox?

    1. I take it beatings are still ok.

      1. And shooting dogs.

  28. If signed into law, it would switch Nevada’s contest from a caucus to a primary and move the state up in the nation’s election calendar, passing the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary for the first slot.

    Iowa and New Hampshire will soon be holding their pricuses and caucaries the day after the previous presidential election.

    1. In libertarian-minded New Hampshire, consenting adults have the right to hold their pricuses and caucaries and each others too. In Nevada, they can even get paid to do it by someone wanting it. Iowa, maybe not if the Religious Right has a hand in things (so to speak.)

  29. When style and demeanor are the only differences between Democrats and Republicans, the policies themselves don’t matter. Biden wants more than a trillion dollars in new spending. Senate GOP wants a trillion dollars in new spending. No appreciable difference. Democrats want to crack down on social media, Josh Hawley wants to crack down on social media. No difference. No appreciable difference. Trump kept Obama’s cages for migrant children, Biden keeps Trump’s cages for migrant children. No appreciable difference.

    The only difference is that one party is rule and insolent and the other party is slimy and dissembling. But there’s no significant difference between them. And the press is starting to figure this out. The public has known this for a long time, which is why “Decline to State” is the fastest growing party in the United States.

    1. You had a GOP guy who was certainly not one of the average, and scumbag TDS-addled assholes like you did your best to get rid of him.
      YOU own it, you pile of shit.

    2. When style and demeanor are the only differences between Democrats and Republicans

      When you believe this to be true…

      Biden wants more than a trillion dollars in new spending. Senate GOP wants a trillion dollars in new spending. No appreciable difference.

      Except biden wants 12 Trillion total (6T budget, 2T already passed, 2T Infrastructure, and a future 2T bill later this year).

      I mean, if you have to lie about things to get a false equivalency it kind of gives the false part away.

      One can even point out how 80% of the GOP offer is to actual physical infrastructure as compared to 7% of the Democrats bill, but that would mean you are honestly evaluating the proposals. Which we know you are not.

    3. Unfortunately, there seems to be almost constituency left in America for fiscal responsibility. And even in the old days the constituency wasn’t that big. Most people just can’t resist the allure of free shit.

      On the very rare occasions in recent history when the republicans have actually tried to put up a real fight over the budget, leading to all the “government shutdown” theater even the fugazi libertarians of Reason always end up saying “just shut the hell and sign the damn budget already.”

      Be honest, do you seriously believe for even a moment that Elizabeth Nolan Brown actually supports the idea of across the board spending cuts, every single department, every single agency, every single program? Anyone stupid enough to believe that would believe just about anything.

    4. “When style and demeanor are the only differences between Democrats and Republicans, the policies themselves don’t matter. Biden wants more than a trillion dollars in new spending. Senate GOP wants a trillion dollars in new spending. No appreciable difference. “

      This is factually incorrect.

      The GOP bill included $257 billion in new spending.

      Biden’s plan is for $1.7 trillion in new spending.

      “The revised $928 billion counteroffer from Republicans includes only about $257 billion in new spending, raising concerns among Democrats. The White House has said the entirety of its $1.7 trillion plan is above current baseline levels of spending”

      https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-administration-extends-bipartisan-infrastructure-talks-into-june-11622391578?

      The Republican counteroffer repurposes unspent money from earlier stimulus packages passed by the Democrats. The Democrat plan is $1.7 trillion in new spending. And it isn’t clear that the Republicans will vote for the infrastructure bill at all Early indications still suggests the Democrats will need to pass it in the Senate without any Republicans participation whatsoever.

      Meanwhile, we haven’t even started talking about the differences in the things they want to spend that money on. Much of the Democrats’ spending is for part of the Green New Deal that have been broken up and added on to separate bills. Biden’s plan also includes social spending on the elderly and the poor. Not only are they not spending the same amounts, they’re spending on different things.

      What else are you wrong about?

      Everything?

      Your partisanship makes you blind.

      1. Yes, he is unaware. He cares more about trying to pretend both sides than he does analyzing both sides.

        1. He doesn’t seem to consider much of anything that violates his preexisting assumptions, and that’s the kind interpretation.

          The other interpretation is that he’s lacking critical thinking skills, believes what he’s told, and doesn’t seem to understand the point of subjecting his preferred beliefs to the establishment of facts and scrutiny of logic.

          1. Ken is like folks who go around claiming God is on their side, except Ken substitutes “logic” for “God”.

            1. Said the fire extinguisher.

            2. Actually… a good time to quote you….

              Mike Laursen
              May.28.2021 at 12:11 pm
              Flag Comment Mute User
              All the coroner said is that he was not directly killed by the rioters. Nobody has said it was non-related.

              The deaths of Sicknick, Liebengood, and Smith are clearly _related_ to the Capitol riots.

              Mike Laursen
              May.28.2021 at 3:14 pm
              Flag Comment Mute User
              _I_ say it was related. Because I am not a partisan hack, and I have common sense, and I can see plain truths.

            3. “Ken is like folks who go around claiming God is on their side, except Ken substitutes “logic” for “God”.”

              And YOU are too fucking stupid to understand the difference!
              Amazing!

              1. What’s dumber than White Knight criticizing someone for being rational in a libertarian forum?

              2. At one point, I literally broke it down for her: either you criticize the facts in an argument or your criticize the reasoning. The internet is built for verifying facts. Here’s where you can find a bunch of examples of bad reasoning . . .

                And she turns around and criticizes me for being rational!

                LOL

                That’s why I muted her.

                1) Doesn’t care whether wrong or right.

                2) Repeatedly refuses all invitations to be rational.

                Why should we engage anyone under those circumstances?

                1. “The internet is built for verifying facts.”

                  Is it? The Internet is full of sources of information, many demonstrably providing wrong information. Pretty much any source that liberal partisans consider reliable is questioned by conservative partisans, and vice versa.

                  The Internet sucks as a way to verify facts. That’s part of the mess our country is in right now.

                  1. No, this is why you couldn’t use internet sources (unless just online versions of published books) as citations in school or college when the internet first became widely used. The early users of the internet understood that anyone could post anything and it wasn’t all true. Users today are too apathetic and won’t do the work to verify things themselves.

                    That’s one of the main reasons the country is in this mess, because idiots like you look to the internet for answers instead of relying on the experiences of our founders.

    5. 6 Trillion is no different than less than 1 trillion?

    6. Democrats want to crack down on social media, Josh Hawley wants to crack down on social media. No difference.

      Democrats want social media to aid them in silencing opposition.

      Republicans want social media to stop silencing people.

      Nope. No difference at all.

  30. “What unique perspective does a minority student bring to a physics class?” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked

    Insights about dark matter?

    1. BLACK BODY RADIATION MATTERS

    2. They usually helped me in class, by lowering the curve enough to get me an A

    3. The Brownian motion?

  31. So, you know how progressives, masquerading as environmentalists, say you should, “Think globally and act locally”? Well, the following is from a while ago, in San Francisco, but if you live in a red state with some blue cities in it or blue city, this show is coming to your town soon if it hasn’t already.

    “The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to ban natural gas in new buildings. The ordinance will apply to more than 54,000 homes and 32 million square feet of commercial space in the city’s development pipeline.”

    —-San Francisco Chronicle

    https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/No-more-natural-gas-in-new-San-Francisco-15717658.php

    I was looking at what this would mean for a typical resident in San Francisco, and was converting “therms” to kWhs to compare their natural gas rates to electricity rates, but then I realized (link below) that residents in San Francisco are already paying 84.9% (eighty-four point nine percent) more for electricity per kilowatt hour and 46.4% more per therm for natural gas than the national averages.

    You might be tempted to think that when government has screwed the power market up so badly with political considerations, it throws the prices for power so far out of whack that banning natural gas for 54,000 homes and 32 million square feet of commercial space probably won’t even matter. That’s not so!

    Adding more bidders and restricting the supply will cause power prices to increase dramatically OTBE–and adding more expensive renewable energy production isn’t about to alleviate the pressure for higher costs than they had for natural gas. And when San Francisco (or your hometown) does this to fight global warming, the extra costs are coming out your discretionary spending. That’s your standard of living!

    Meanwhile, how do they plan to make people switch over to electric cars if powering electric cars becomes cost prohibitive due to them prohibiting the use of natural gas to power new buildings? Don’t people with electric cars use a lot more electricity? I guess forcing you to use public transportation is a feature rather than a bug. Using the government to force people to make sacrifices (of their freedom and standard of living, for example) for the benefit of others or for no benefit it all is what being progressive is all about.

    That’s one of the big reasons why progressives are America’s most horrible people.

    1. It’s for your own good.

      1. Yeah, the first rule of progressive club is that it’s for your own good.

        The second rule of progressive club is that if it isn’t for your own good, you’re a racist.

        The third rule of progressive club is that if you don’t want to be a racist, better pretend it’s for your own good.

    2. And what happens if electricity is not fully available yet or not every location has the infrastructure in place yet to convert to electricity but the city cuts the gas off anyway. will people not have heat or or even refrigerators. The state already can’t handle the existing load.

      1. Well, that’s what regulators are for–to force the power company to deliver power safely without maintaining power lines through the forests”, and regulators are there to force the power company to deliver power cheaply–whether it has power or not.

        Captain Bligh: “Why aren’t the men working?”

        First Mate: “They haven’t eaten in a week”.

        Captain Bligh: “Why haven’t they eaten?”

        First Mate: “We ran out of food a week ago”.

        Captain Bligh: “Then we must force them to eat. Use the whip!”

    3. Sure they’re artificially driving up demand in a state already known for rolling brownouts and massive fires due to unmaintained electrical infrastructure but, hey, at least it’s not an aluminum tariff, amiright?

      1. And they want the whole automobile energy market to pile onto the electrical grid, too–despite costs going through the roof?!

        It doesn’t make sense.

    4. Cutting off natural gas seems goofy.

      Sure, natural gas appliances usually run on natural gas from fossil fuel deposits.

      But it can just as easily be sustainably produced methane from various sources. And the one place where burning something for energy is 100% efficient is in heating.

      Instead they are going to use natural gas turbines and coal plants to produce electricity at a big loss in efficiency, then transmit it with efficiency losses…. then turn it into heat. Genius!

    5. yep.

      The Seattle City Council on Monday unanimously approved changes to energy codes that will further clamp down on natural gas use in new commercial and apartment buildings taller than three stories.

      The ordinance bans natural gas for space heating in new construction of these buildings, or for use in replacement heating systems in older buildings. It also would prohibit the use of natural gas to heat water in new hotels and large apartment buildings, and take other steps to improve energy conservation that include a greater use of more efficient electric heating and cooling systems.

      1. I suppose Seattle has a lot of hydro electricity?

        They sure as hell aren’t about to make it up with solar.

        Seattle’s sky is so overcast and dreary, it’s where solar panels go to commit suicide.

      2. On Monday? A holiday?

        I’ve always said that the Seattle city council is made up of the hardest working, most level headed public servants on the planet.

        Haha.

    6. They are going to try and push this nationally.

      https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/zero-energy-ready-homes

      In cold climates this is going to make new homes insanely expensive to live in. The passive solar part of this approach is possibly the only good part. I bet you guys can’t wait to spend $100 a month just to heat your water.

    7. It’s worse than that, and it’s coming to all new construction in California.

      Ever watch a home flipping or remodeling show on HGTV?
      How often does the buyer take out gas appliances and put in a nice electric cooktop? Never. No one who can afford a gas range wants an electric cooktop. If a house has an electric stove, it’s the first thing they take out.

      Think rolling blackouts are a problem now in California? Wait until your heat and your oven are run on electricity too. Now you’ll still be in the dark (with no AC), but you won’t be able to cook either.

      1. So here’s the California plan:

        1. Switch to a less reliable renewable energy grid (wind and solar, nuclear bad, hydropower bad).
        2. Have kids hector you to use less energy from 4 to 9 PM to “Keep California Golden”. (also to stop rolling blackouts)
        3. Push everyone to electric cars to really stress the grid.
        4. Push everyone to electric appliances to stress the grid some more and take out a backup option for cooking and heating.

        What could possibly go wrong?
        How long until the rolling blackouts are assigned instead of random?

  32. “An attorney for DC Police said in court, for the first time, that the department did indeed use tear gas on protesters around Lafayette Square Park last June….”

    JesseAz weighing in, immediately jumping to using “gaslighting” to describe accusations that tear gas was used:

    https://reason.com/2020/06/03/it-wasnt-tear-gas-it-was-a-gaseous-substance-that-causes-tears/#comment-8283543

    1. LOL. you can’t address me directly Mikey? Do you still want to discuss fire extinguishers and bear spray? I’d like the full statement, not the tweet cut portion. My guess is they are comparing tear gas to pepper rounds.

    2. Hey,Mike! Tell us about the many cops killed with fire extinguishers again!
      It’s fun watching you make a public ass of yourself!
      Again.

      1. Hillary still backs him on this one… so you might be wrong.

    3. Kept that poo in your pocket for a whole year, eh?

      If you wonder why the girls won’t sit near you, that is why.

    4. Let’s see white mike… from just the SUB HEADLINE:

      Attorney Richard Sobiecki explained for the first time why MPD used tear gas against protesters fleeing federal police, though he did not say what exactly was used.

      Wonder why ENB didn’t cite that instead… Nope, she used the tweet about the article instead of the article.

      https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/investigations/mpd-admits-it-tear-gassed-protesters-june-2020/65-b91a5d65-b683-4e22-b30a-7a740e9cf61d

      The article doesn’t even provide many details.

      But you know, why bother with facts when the narrative is prime.

      1. Lol, Dee (ENB, actually) pulled a DOL.

        1. The more likely story is that the lawyer in question is ignorant like many lawyers when it comes to munitions and ordnance. The Capitol Police already inventoried what was used on protestors and stated they used pepper munitions, which is not tear gas. What a weird article to put front and center into the roundup. It has no valuable information in it at all.

    5. And the ultimate irony of your comment white mike is that tear gas was also justified.

      Unlike shooting an unarmed protestor in the head. Likewise tear gas was also used at the Capitol Protest, in doors, which is far more dangerous and against department regulations. You didn’t seem to mind them using gas then… why?

      Does pelting officers with frozen water bottles, rockets, and lasers not count as assault?

      1. “…You didn’t seem to mind them using gas then… why?…”

        One of the major warning signs of TDS.
        Another being a total inability to tell the truth; and Mike is nothing if not a constant lying piece of shit.

  33. https://twitter.com/AurelianofRome/status/1399674879692136452?s=19

    A lot of people are desperate to rebrand CRT now that it is being accurately identified as a derivative of Mein Kampf’s main thesis.

    Each rebranding is still fundamentally rooted in race-essentialism. It is so deeply embedded and entrenched that reform is not possible.

    CRT adherents should be seen for what they are… moral lepers who champion reactionary racism under a “might is right” philosophy that dispenses with human rights.

    They must renounce their murderous hate.

    1. So…you’re saying Mizek’s actually a radical trans-feminist?

    2. “Something went wrong”

      Is that what you get when Twits get deleted?

      1. I just clicked the link and it worked

        1. Hmm. Weird, it’s there now for me too.

    3. I really dont know why they bills / people advocating for it to be banned dont just call it blatantly what it is. It is on its face straight up, plain as day racism, and its just calling for revenge racism against whitey.

      Kendi, the terrible wanna be intellectual (who clearly doesnt have the chops) literally calls for it. “Any current or future racism that makes up for past racism is itself anti-racist”…something close to that but the sentiment is right on. Straight from his published book.

      The only answer to these people needs to be “fuck off, youre pedaling racism”, no further conversation.

  34. “A significant portion of the right—from legislators like Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) to Fox News hosts like Tucker Carlson, traditionally right-leaning magazines like The American Conservative, and all sorts of rank-and-file Republicans—has started to sound very similar to the far left when it comes to private business and government regulation.”

    What good is a big government, and political power, if you can’t use it?

    Also, since the same marketing firms run political campaigns, why should we expect a reversal of the “democracy is for imposing the will of the majority and voting for free stuff” movement?

  35. Will the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approve a promising new Alzheimer’s drug?

    This is good…so I tied an onion to my belt which was the style at the time…

    1. hopeful unforeseen side effects are “makes me taller”

  36. “It would be the first treatment ever sold to slow the deterioration in brain function caused by the disease, not just to ease symptoms. And it would be the first new Alzheimer’s treatment since 2003.”

    Will they please, please offer to put this on a drip IV in the water supply at the White House for Sleepy, Creepy, Crazy, Cranky, Tankie, Corn-Pop, Lunch-Bucket, Basement Bunker, Shotgun Joe?

    1. IMO, Alzheimer’s is one of Joe’s best features.

  37. Thank you for noting that it is Big Government Conservatives that want to regulate social media. The fact is that social media is pretty much level ground for most political-ideological debates. You can debate any number of issues on these platforms. What is being increasingly booted off is the conspiracy theories and only those that are really threaten our social fabric. You can still talk about UFO or fluorinated water. The right wing populists are increasingly frustrated because they are the biggest purveyors of these CS at the time.

    1. What is being increasingly booted off is the conspiracy theories and only those that are really threaten our social fabric.

      Like critical race theory?

      1. I’m not sure whether he’s saying that being able to audit and count votes threatens the very fabric of society and should be banned or the allegation that the government and media are child-raping satan-worshipers threatens the very fabric of society and should be banned.

        Either way, it’s a pretty bold statement about society.

        1. He’s ok with child rape.

        2. Suggesting covid might have originated in a lab threatened the fabric of society for a while, but it’s ok now

          1. Is the J&J vaccine super safe today or not? I can’t keep up.

      2. No, like the lab leak theory.

    2. “…The fact is that social media is pretty much level ground for most political-ideological debates…”

      The pathetic son of a bitch simply cannot post without lying.

    3. Ideas are threatening.

      1. True ones especially.
        (Just sayin’. I am making no claim about the truth of any claims about the election here.)

    4. You know what really threatens our social fabric? Completely dismissing the concerns of millions of voters about the integrity of the election. Sunshine is the best disinfectant, as they say. If these theories about the election are all wacky and easily debunked, then let the debate happen in as open a way as possible. I’m not making any claim one way or another about the election. But the Dems are certainly behaving as if they have something to hide.

      1. If everything was legit, there’s a really interesting study to be made about how the winning candidate bucked the trend on 17/18 “bellwether” counties, got the most votes ever (by a lot) while winning the fewest counties since there have been 50 states, and why the mail in vote ratio between the candidates was drastically different in PA, WI, MI, and GA vs their neighbors like OH, IN, FL, and AL.
        Plus the remarkable coincidence and assuredly interesting story behind several states pausing their counts in the middle of the night.

        Joe Biden overcame all precedent to defeat an incumbent who improved his own performance by nearly 20% and campaigned a great deal more than him. Amazing accomplishment, you’d think someone would be interested in talking about how…

        1. Even if no one thought the election was stolen/rigged/whatever, it seems like it would be a good idea (if you are honest and interested in fair elections) to closely examine this election given the unusual events of the year and the huge changes in how voting took place with all the mail voting and last minute rule changes.

        2. An underrated factor to add to your list is that the winning candidate somehow won with a running mate who was so disliked by the voters of his own party (let alone the opponent’s) that she dropped out of the presidential nominating race before the first primary after polling at less than 1% in that state and about 5% nationally.

          1. Right.
            And with the knowledge that there’s a pretty good chance the presidential candidate won’t finish his term.
            Another amazing achievement.

          2. And all those people disliked Donald Trump much, much more than they disliked Kamala Harris.

            1. Not much of a surprise that Democrat primary voters don’t like Trump.

              1. Yes, so why does Krup expect liberal-leaning voters to care that Kamala is the VP on the Democratic ticket, when the major party alternative is to vote for Donald Trump?

                1. I know, right?
                  Was there any conservative voter, anywhere, who said in 2016, “I believe in low taxes, gun rights, banning abortion, strong military, supporting the police, but man that Mike Pence guy is kind of a Jesus freak, therefore I’m voting for Hillary”? Anyone?

                  1. “UH NO RITE?”

                  2. I don’t know if Trump would have voted for Pence, if Trump weren’t sharing a ticket with him. But then Trump isn’t actually a conservative.

                2. For the same reason that disliked candidates can be so odious to their own base that in a surprise move, they don’t vote for them. But enough about 2016. We’re talking about 2020.

        3. Plus the remarkable coincidence and assuredly interesting story behind several states pausing their counts in the middle of the night.

          Or more interestingly, claiming they paused their count in the middle of the night while actually continuing it, by the on-air admission of MSNBC reporters.

      2. If these theories about the election are all wacky and easily debunked, then let the debate happen in as open a way as possible.

        The problem is the moral hazard. If you give in to the Big Liars and the delusional conspiracy theories, then it sends the message that all you need to do is to spread a Big Lie often enough, with a big enough megaphone, that you too can hijack the workings of government to demand that your pet conspiracy gets investigated.

        1. And if you call anything you don’t want to hear a “Big Lie” you can sweep more plausible but inconvenient facts under the rug along with the outlandish claims. Some claims about the election are pretty far-fetched. Others are quite plausible. Dishonest people are trying to use guilt by association to label any question about the election’s integrity as a crazy, made up conspiracy theory. I’m more worried about that trend and its associated moral hazard.
          And, as I have said many times here, when you have a significant part of the voting public believing things like this, you do have to address them, even if it is all bullshit. You simply cannot dismiss that many people’s concerns if you ever want them to have faith in the electoral system again.

        2. You talking about Russian hacking/collusion?
          The covid panic?
          The omnipresent threat of white supremacy and systemic racism?

        3. Which is exactly what the left and their media lackeys did with Russian collusion, stormy Daniel’s, trump remarks at the ww2 memorial, Kavanagh being a rapist, covid from a lab leak is a debunked conspiracy, the j and j vaccine doesn’t cause blood clots, sunlight doesn’t kill covid, 2 masks work best but in a week no masks, and I can keep going.

          Eat shit you disingenuous turd.

          1. Sure. They’re all lies. Everything from the media is a lie. The only truth you can trust is what your crazy Uncle Fester says, and what that one guy on a Youtube channel said who sounded kinda smart.

            Labeling something a lie doesn’t make it so.

            It is a LIE that there was MASSIVE FRAUD that STOLE the election from Trump. The evidence is just not there. It was litigated. It was investigated. It was audited. IT’S NOT THERE. The people who cling to this lie simply cannot accept that doddering fossil Biden beat charismatic Trump. Denial of reality is not reason enough to believe a lie.

            Trump was spreading his big election lie even before the election itself even occurred, because he wanted to pre-challenge the legitimacy of an election that he knew he was in real danger of losing, in order to create a pretext for all of his shenanigans. It was bad faith from the very beginning. He wanted to create the conditions to have a plausible pretext to overturn the results and remain in power despite the results. It was disgusting and should not be tolerated by anyone, either left or right.

            1. I still can’t see how some people find Trump charismatic.

            2. “It was litigated.”

              Still ignoring the Michigan ruling I see.

              “Trump was spreading his big election lie even before the election itself even occurred, because he wanted to pre-challenge the legitimacy of an election”

              Like you’ve done with the Arizona audit?

        4. Oh fuck off.

      3. The fact is that the election was debated in the public. It was debated in recounts, in certifications, and in courts. The problem here is that those contesting the election have not produced any evidence or valid hypothesis for how election fraud happened. Rather they put of innuendoes and suggest those as proof. We can not have a debate about the election because for those who believe it was in error it is an act of faith not a question of evidence.

        if you doubt this let me suggest the following, the heart of a good hypothesis is that it can explain the facts and there is a method to prove it is wrong. The method to proving it wrong is critical, because if it passes this test it can be considered valid. To date I have seen no hypothesis supporting election fraud that also has this validity test. Hence believing in election fraud is an act of faith.

        1. We still talk about UFO’s .

        2. Now address the statistical outliers and behavioral anomalies which decided the election.

          1. There is a fucking pandemic, Nardz. The “statistical outliers” are only outliers compared to a *normative standard*. What is the statistically normative standard for voting in the middle of a pandemic? Hmm? The FAR MORE LIKELY explanation for “statistical outliers”, instead of MASSIVE FRAUD, is the pandemic itself which changed all sorts of behavior and voting patterns.

            Why would you think a comparison between voting patterns in the middle of a pandemic, vs. voting patterns during a non-pandemic year, should be statistically reasonable?

            1. Ahh irrational rationization. Whatever gets jeff to the answer he presupposes.

            2. So explain how the pandemic changed voting patterns (and fundamental human nature), you worthless simp.
              Because just regurgitating “pAnDeMiC” isn’t a plausible explanation for anything.

              1. It’s quite simple:
                1. Because of the pandemic, many jurisdictions made options other than voting in-person to be more accessible. So, voter turnout was higher than it normally would have been. Don’t believe me?

                https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/04/record-high-turnout-in-2020-general-election.html

                Higher turnout generally favors Team Blue, regardless.

                2. Because of the pandemic, the two teams deliberately pursued separate strategies to encourage how their voters ought to vote. Team Blue was much more cautious because of the pandemic, and so strongly encouraged their voters to vote by mail, while Team Red instead strongly encouraged their voters to vote in person. That really hadn’t happened before. Usually it was a mix of both teams’ voters would vote in both types of methods. Maybe it would favor one team a little bit more than the other, but not by much. So it is not surprising, based on the different strategy pursued last year, that the results for in-person voting vs. mail-in voting varied quite sharply by Red vs. Blue much more than it normally would.

                Again one does not have to posit ballot dumps in the middle of the night, or fraudulent voting machines, to have a plausible broad understanding of what happened.

                And as far as statistics go, statistics can only compare two different sets of data to each other. Statistics cannot determine if the comparison itself is valid or not. So if you just naively compare 2020 data to 2016 data, WITHOUT taking into account the variables which makes such a direct comparison suspect, then it’s an invalid comparison. That is how you lie with statistics. And that is what Team Red has been doing with pushing the Big Lie narrative with sketchy numbers.

        3. Actually, there are several mechanisms whereby the election could have been, if not fraudulent, then at least questionable. The big one is the mail in voting and checking of signatures on absentee ballots. At the very least, anyone who cares about election integrity should be for tightening that up and having better verification that the people voting are the who they are supposed to be. You are trying to say that because some claims about the election have been debunked or are apparently false that every one is. That is a load of shit.
          And politics is not science. You need to convince people. Telling them they are just a bunch of crazy idiots isn’t a very good way to do that.

          1. You’ve shot him down, rationally and more respectfully than I ever would, so many times and he never pays attention. It’s sad on his part. You’re a pretty inciteful guy for the more crude like me to pay attention to.

            1. I assume you meant “insightful”, and I’ll add that the signature rejection rate went from something like an average of 2-6% down to less than 0.5% even though mail in ballots numbered far more than ever before.
              There is no legitimate explanation for such an occurrence.

          2. One of the largest outliers was the number of adjudicated ballots lrocessed the election. The other was the near 0% rejection rates on signature comparisons when historically they run about 2 to 3%

          3. It took about 12 hours for a Youtube rando to find confirmed votes coming from addresses that either didn’t exist, or the person to whom the ballot belonged didn’t live. And the election official admitted that there was no system in place to “de-certify” a vote that was later found to be incorrect/fraudulent.

            1. Do you have a reference for this?

              1. So you can hand wave it away?

                1. So I can learn more about it.

                  1. No one but Dee believes this.

                    1. He did that with the Oberlin decision, too. He whined about his lefty boos getting dunked on for trying to frame the bakery owners as racist, then when shown the whole rundown on the case that was done by Legal Insurrection, minced out this gem:

                      chemjeff radical individualist
                      June.24.2019 at 5:53 pm

                      Well, your link of course gives an anti-Oberlin view of things.

                    2. I can’t believe you saved a 2-year-old post of mine. That is quite something.

                      So who is this Youtube guy, and what did he find? Am I just supposed to take your word for it?

                    3. I can’t believe you saved a 2-year-old post of mine. That is quite something.

                      It exemplifies your left-wing obsequiousness.

        4. “It was debated in recounts, in certifications, and in courts.”

          Like the federal court that ruled the Democrat SoS of Michigan violated election laws when she directed election workers to ignore signatures that don’t match on absentee ballots, while also sending out multiple unsolicited mail in ballot applications to every registered voter, for the first time ever?

          Or do you only mean the courts that agree with your narrative?

          1. Do you have a reference to this court decision?

            And what is the big deal with ballot *applications*? Why NOT send out unsolicited ballot applications? How is it any more sinister than sending out unsolicited credit card applications, or loan applications, or any other unsolicited *application*? It’s not the ballot itself that is being sent out.

            1. I’ve linked it/referenced it several times and you ignored it every time, so look it up yourself.

              In a vacuum, mailing out applications isn’t a big deal. It’s mailing out several to each registered voter (my wife and I each received 4), while instructing the people that process the ballots to ignore signatures that don’t match, both for the first time ever in the state. By a Democrat SoS, with a well known corrupt population center also run by Democrats, (while you’re looking up the SoS story, look into Wayne County and Detroit voting) that swung the state to Democrats.

              But you won’t look into it. I’ve posted this several times. It’s all been known for months. You don’t want to know about it.

              1. And I know of several claims, one of which I know far a fact was true, of applications going to houses where the person o the application hadn’t lived there in years.

              2. This is the first I’ve heard of it. Believe it or not, I don’t read every comment by every poster every single day.

                with a well known corrupt population center also run by Democrats

                Well why not just stop there? They’re Democrats so obviously MASSIVE FRAUD right??? Why would it matter what the SoS did? Because even if the SoS was a complete angel, you’ll just return to CORRUPT DEMOCRAT DETROIT anyway. That is one of the problem with these theories, corruption is assumed in the absence of direct physical evidence. “Oh they’re Democrats therefore they’re corrupt!”

                1. “This is the first I’ve heard of it. Believe it or not, I don’t read every comment by every poster every single day.”

                  Or you could actually be curious like you pretend to be, and look it up. It was an actual federal court case about the election in a swing state since the election, that had a ruling and everything. But it doesn’t fit your existing beliefs, so you are afraid to look into it, resorting back to your bullshit.

              3. And when your theory ASSUMES corruption and then demands that everyone else NOT prove it was corrupt in order to have “election integrity”, that is when it leaves the field of legitimate complaint and enters the conspiracy theory zone, because not only does it reek of paranoia, it’s non-falsifiable to boot. No one can prove the absence of corruption, and if your standard for “secure election” is “prove to me that no one did anything wrong”, then there will never be any standard that will be met to your satisfaction.

                1. Not ASSUMING shit bitch. Corruption in Detroit and Wayne county is a well known fact in Michigan. Democrats don’t even deny issues, they just keep promising to fix them. This is from 2016:

                  https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/12/records-many-votes-detroits-precincts/95363314/

                2. Here’s a story from 2012 regarding the FBI and Detroit you ignorant cunt:

                  “That much is evident to anyone paying attention, and things are so bad that in 2012 the FBI organized the Detroit Area Public Corruption Task Force — which is made up of local, state, and federal law officials — to tackle the issue.”

                  https://m.metrotimes.com/news-hits/archives/2019/06/05/us-attorney-michigan-is-the-nations-most-corrupt-state

                3. No one can prove the absence of corruption, and if your standard for “secure election” is “prove to me that no one did anything wrong”,

                  You really should stop making shit up that other people say and then putting it in quotes. It’s one of the more annoying ways you’re a dishonest piece of shit.

          2. Like the federal court that ruled the Democrat SoS of Michigan violated election laws when she directed election workers to ignore signatures that don’t match on absentee ballots,

            So since you won’t give me a link to what specifically you’re referring to, I had to find my own. This is what I found:

            https://www.michiganradio.org/post/sos-signature-matching-guidelines-absentee-ballots-ruled-invalid-judge

            First, it was not a federal judge, it was a state judge.
            Second, the SoS did not direct election workers to “ignore” signatures. Instead:

            In October, Benson said that a signature on an absentee ballot should be presumed valid unless it differed “in multiple, significant and obvious respects from the signature on file.”

            It would help your case if you could actually report the issue honestly.

            1. Yes, I made a mistake, it was a state court in this case. Definitely makes it an invalid point.

              “In October, Benson said that a signature on an absentee ballot should be presumed valid unless it differed “in multiple, significant and obvious respects from the signature on file.”

              So a single, obvious difference should be presumed valid. And multiple, insignificant, or not obvious (whatever exactly that would mean) differences should be presumed valid. And she thought this should be specifically instructed why? You don’t care why, because I got a case from a couple months ago wrong on whether it was a state or federal court. You really got me on that one Lying Jeffy!

    5. “What is being increasingly booted off is the conspiracy theories and only those that are really threaten our social fabric.”

      Given recent revelations about the origins of covid-19 and Joe Biden meeting with his son’s crooked business associates when he was vice president, it’s hard to tell whether this is sarcasm or serious.

      I think he’s serious, which may be another way of suggesting he’s ignorant or stupid. I mean, if he did know about these recent revelations and said this anyway, it’s an insult to our intelligence.

      If this really was sarcasm, then I apologize. If you really meant it, whether you you were ignorant of these revelations or not, you’re a fucking idiot. How can you say such stupid thing in a public forum and expect people not to make fun of you?

      1. “…I think he’s serious, which may be another way of suggesting he’s ignorant or stupid. I mean, if he did know about these recent revelations and said this anyway, it’s an insult to our intelligence…”

        Pretty sure we have another example of the Tony/turd syndrome here: M4e is simply not capable of the level of thought required to examine alternatives to his hypothesis, and he’s therefore not smart enough to recognize he’s lying.
        Like T/t, yes, he’s a lying piece of crap, but that’s a symptom, not a cause.

        1. I asked White Knight’s sock puppet if she was stupid because she couldn’t understand what she read or whether she couldn’t understand what she read because she’s stupid over the weekend.

          I was being serious.

          Some of these people are so twisted by their partisanship, that they can’t even see the facts when they’re staring them in the face. I haven’t seen anything like it since trying to explain the difference between Islamic Fundamentalists and Saddam Hussein.

          They’ll figure it out in the future, but right now, it’s October of 2001 in their minds. What they know about Muslims, they picked up from Disney’s Aladdin. They think Saddam Hussein has mobile WMD labs, he’s in cahoots with Al Qaeda, he was trying to buy yellowcake from Niger, and he was almost certainly complicit in 9/11.

          They just keep regurgitating the media narrative from weeks ago like it’s the Hare Krishna mantra or something. It’s both what they believe and the thing they repeat to make themselves feel better. If only we knew the peace that comes with repeating their media narrative mantra, then we could be as enlightened as they are! They think they’re mainstream, but they come across as a bunch of cult victims hassling people for change at the airport.

        2. I always thought M4E was parody.

          1. At one time, I hoped so.

      2. read the last line. It is sarcastic parody. “you can still talk about UFOs and Fluoridated Water”…. meaning any real topics are banned.

        This is literally the exact take of everyone on the left right now… so it is parody indistinguishable from reality. This post literally is the internet meme. It is Poe’s Law come to life. It is perfect.

        1. Yep. You can talk about whatever you want. As long as it’s something that doesn’t really matter.
          The only speech that needs protection is speech that lots of people think is wrong.

        2. And m4e has said he was a poll worker in Madison, WI

          1. THAT explains a LOT!

      3. He’s a good Leninist.

        https://twitter.com/VallachianR/status/1398715265358045186?s=19

        The most important article of the decade. Read it and you will understand the left since Lenin’s days, until today. You will learn why you shouldn’t expect them to relent in their quest for power by any means necessary, or negotiate in good faith. [Link – you have to go through the tweet to get to the article because the website format prevents Reason from allowing it; alternatively, you can duckduckgo newcriterion article: leninthink, by Gary Saul Morson, from October 2019]

    6. You mean like Hunter’s laptop and the possibility that the China virus came from a lab?

      Are you retarded?

      1. Or HRC destroying evidence?
        Or HRC getting her ass handed to her over Benghazi?

        Exactly

    7. Genius….

      But too subtle.

    8. Thank you for noting that it is Big Government Conservatives that want to regulate social media.

      That’s exactly my takeaway.

  38. “longstanding commitment of conservatives to limited government and free enterprise”

    Commitment to lip service, maybe.

  39. you cite National Review as though it retains any shred of credibility

  40. >>a “growing movement on the right challenging the longstanding commitment of conservatives to limited government and free enterprise”

    Jeebus just fucking admit you’re a democrat, Philip Klein.

    1. That would ruin the grift

  41. Illinois is trying to ban police from lying to child suspects during questioning.

    While this is a good start, it is a bit of a wishy washy solution and leaves grey area.

    Just ban the cops from being able to speak to ANY person without their lawyer present.

  42. Yo! Reason editorial staff!

    It has been almost 5 years now. How can you possibly still not have the slightest clue about what is happening with “the media” writ large and what the reaction is all about, including the reaction of the libertarian audience you cater to?

    There are probably 10 screeds a week among the commentariate here, dating back for the full 5 years, explaining in painful detail what is happening, why it is bad for liberty, and why the reaction is what it is.

    And you still can’t call a spade a spade. Every single take has to be about the reaction, not the action. Any critique of the initial offensive has to be surrounded by enough throat clearing to drown out the critique.

    What in the world is wrong with you people? This is simple and obvious.

    Let me put it in terms of the NAP: No initiation of force. Key word being “initiation”.

    Force has been initiated, across the spectrum. And all you worry about is the guy with the Gadsden Flag running for his armory…. sheesh people!

    The way to stop the march of the right toward statist solutions is to stop the massive onslaught from the left on all freedom of expression. It really is that simple.

    If you want to stop the epidemic of convenience store robbers being shot, you look to the robbers and say “stop robbing convenience stores”… you don’t start advocating for convenience stores to quit allowing their clerks to carry protection.

    Nobody can be this dumb… but I don’t see the end game. What is this libertarian version of 4D chess where we allow all of life to become one giant, curated propaganda machine? Somehow this ends up in freedom? Every political novel of the last century and a half is wrong… I really should have learned to love Big Brother?

    1. Good post.

    2. I would really like to see a serious response to this from KMW or someone with some sway at Reason.

    3. You deserve a link to a libertarian publication who’s been on this beat for a very long time.

      Has Facebook unwittingly become a shill for China?
      Its censorship of the lab-leak theory was wrong, immoral and insulting.

      In recent months it wasn’t only the inhabitants of China who were forbidden from speaking ill of the Chinese regime. So were billions of others around the world. Thanks to Facebook and its clampdown on any discussion of the theory that Covid-19 might have been ‘manufactured’ or might have leaked from a lab in Wuhan, people in America, Britain, France and across the globe were subjected to Chinese-style silencing. They were essentially banned from saying things that might embarrass the Chinese Communist Party. The supposedly woke, chilled overlords of the World Wide Web helped to globalise the CCP’s repression of free thought and open debate.

      We need to talk about this. Facebook has now lifted its restrictions on posts that describe Covid-19 as ‘man-made’ or ‘manufactured’ or which say the virus escaped from a lab — the Wuhan Institute of Virology, to be precise. This has paved the way for its 2.7 billion users to freely discuss the possibility that Covid-19 emerged in a science facility rather than in a bowl of bat soup. But this shouldn’t be an end to it.

      1. But hey, it’s the Right Wing Backlash that’s the REAL problem!!!11!

        1. >>unwittingly become a shill for China?

          Wittingly. Zuck was smog-jogging in Peking for the cameras several years ago.

    4. I really should have learned to love Big Brother?

      Big Brother is THE STATE. Facebook is not the state. Google is not the state. Twitter is not the state. Amazon is not the state. Apple is not the state.

      Do you really want Reason, or anyone else, to stand in judgment of whatever Facebook or Twitter censors and say “that one’s right and that one’s wrong”?

      1. And Jeff still hasn’t learned the word collusion.

        1. She is dumb beyond description.

      2. I’m not saying it has happened now, but how much collusion would there have to be between a company like Facebook and the state before they could be considered an arm of the state? There has to be a line somewhere, no?

        1. Well, I think one would have to clearly distinguish between “collusion” and “persuasion” and frankly I don’t know if such a thing is objectively possible. Also, one would have to deal with issues of causality. Take the Jan. 6 insurrection for example. Both the government and Facebook management were upset that Facebook’s platforms were used to help organize the plot. Did Facebook’s management take steps against the plotters *because* the government told them to? Or did Facebook’s management take steps because they genuinely didn’t want the plotters on their platform anymore? Or because of fear of lawsuits?

          I think you have to look at where the locus of decision-making lies. If the decision is Zuckerberg’s to make, and not the state’s, then you have to regard Facebook’s decision as its own, and not the state’s.

          1. This is perfect.

            They had absolutely zero evidence that their platform was used to organize “the plot”. There is little evidence of any “the plot” that was organized to any degree, but such as it is, Twitter is the primary platform.

            Yet was it Facebook that was “deplatformed”? No. Was it Twitter? No. It was a platform that is the one platform we know wasn’t actually involved (mostly because nobody uses it). They were so evil we had to remove them from app stores, remove them from their hosting platform at Amazon… who simultaneously signed an expanded service contract with Twitter…. And block their banking services. All with zero evidence that anyone even used the platform for such purposes.

            So inadvertantly you have pointed out the problem. With zero evidence they block stuff the DNC doesn’t like as “disinformation”. Much of which is actually true. And they push stuff that is actually false at the behest of the DNC. All without disclosure, which would be the minimum requirements for such activities.

            1. Facebook sunk at least half a billion dollars on running the election, but they’re totes not government.

      3. This is dumb beyond words. I get that someone fed you that talking point as if it addresses the issue… But it does not in any way.

        Short answer: do you really care of the hobnailed boot that is stamping on your face forever is owned by a private consortium or by the state? Or is your true interest not having any hobnailed boots stamping on your face?

        Longer and more complex answer:. The left seeks to silence people who disagree with them. They have consistently attempted to use the state to do this (fairness doctrine ring a bell?) for decades. They also have attempted to influence or control private actors to do this for them. In order to do this, they have also leveraged the power off the state to twist corporate arms. Pretending that the issue is one of free association is not just a canard at this point, it is a deliberate lie. An internet hosting company has no interest in partisan politics. They want hosting dollars. Same goes for banks. And telephone operating system manufacturers. Yet that conglomeration colluded to deplatform the same people at the same time using the same (false) reason. The possibility of that happening absent an external stick is zero.

        1. Also… “Who owns the boot” is the difference between Communist and Nazi governments.

          So your argument boils down to: “Hey! They aren’t communists! They are Nazis! What are you upset about!?!”

          1. What was that term the evil governments used to use in movies when they were behind shady stuff…
            Plausible deniability

        2. The left seeks to silence people who disagree with them.

          Authoritarians of all stripes tend to want to do this, yes.

          They have consistently attempted to use the state to do this (fairness doctrine ring a bell?) for decades.

          I would quibble whether the “fairness doctrine” was about silencing anyone, rather than a hamfisted government attempt to try to create artificial “balance”, but that is for another discussion.

          They also have attempted to influence or control private actors to do this for them.

          There is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone trying to *influence* the behavior of others using any legal means. And if you mean “control” as in “state nationalization” or “regulations officially promulgated by a regulatory agency”, then yes that does happen of course, by authoritarians on all sides.

          In order to do this, they have also leveraged the power off the state to twist corporate arms.

          Then show the actual twisting – moreover, demonstrate the actual cause and effect. Because Senator Huffalumps once said mean words about Twitter, it does not necessarily follow that Jack Dorsey changed his behavior *because of* those mean words.

          Pretending that the issue is one of free association is not just a canard at this point, it is a deliberate lie.

          No, it is an observation that is rooted in a non-paranoid view of the world.

          An internet hosting company has no interest in partisan politics. They want hosting dollars. Same goes for banks. And telephone operating system manufacturers. Yet that conglomeration colluded to deplatform the same people at the same time using the same (false) reason.

          Wait, but I thought lots of companies are becoming “woke” now. Isn’t that part of the growing right-wing criticism against “woke capital”? That many companies actually DO care about partisan politics now, and that that’s a problem (from their POV)? So why would “woke companies” require any arm twisting from the state to deplatform certain people? Isn’t that what they would be inclined to do anyway?

          Furthermore, even if the companies in question aren’t “woke”, or don’t care about politics one way or another, pretty much every company out there DOES care about their image and their reputation. None of these companies, I’m sure, want to be known as “the place where the Nazis hang out”.

          Also, companies of all types tend to be afraid of lawsuits. Suppose a bunch of these online Nazis commit some terrible crime, and it’s revealed that they planned their crime online. Could the Internet hosting company be held at least partially liable? Do they *really* want to find out?

          I think a lot of the decisions made by these big tech firms, in terms of censoring or deplatforming, can most easily be explained by either (a) fear of reputational damage, or (b) fear of lawsuits, rather than positing some conspiratorial collusion between Big Tech and Big Government.

          The possibility of that happening absent an external stick is zero.

          Why? Don’t people communicate and cooperate with each other all the time, without needing some external stick to force them to cooperate? Isn’t that exactly how we libertarians all the time describe the spontaneous order that arises from the market – millions of people who decide to act in their own interest without having to be told by some central planning bureau what to do, which *looks like* it is being directed by some invisible hand, but isn’t?

          1. Also, companies of all types tend to be afraid of lawsuits.

            Why the fuck would Facebook or any other Big Tech company be afraid of a lawsuit? These are billion-dollar corporate global conglomerates with an army of lawyers to deal with any lawsuit, and with government connections that in some cases, like Facebook and Google, go back to their early development years, or like Netflix, from massive campaign donations to Democratic politicians, or like Microsoft, start up a cable channel with a major media network that kisses Democratic ass 24/7.

            There’s no evidence anywhere that this so-called fear of reputational damage or fear of lawsuits actually exists.

            1. Why the fuck would Facebook or any other Big Tech company be afraid of a lawsuit?

              Because they are not immune from the law?

              There’s no evidence anywhere that this so-called fear of reputational damage or fear of lawsuits actually exists.

              Sure. Big companies don’t have entire legal departments devoted to reducing liability exposure for the firm. Companies don’t create entire advertising campaign for no other purpose than to establish their image. Yeah. None of that ever happens.

              1. Because they are not immune from the law?

                Sure. Big companies don’t have entire legal departments devoted to reducing liability exposure for the firm. Companies don’t create entire advertising campaign for no other purpose than to establish their image. Yeah. None of that ever happens.

                This is just circular reasoning, which isn’t a surprise coming from you.

                1. This is just you arguing against me for the sake of arguing against me. Sheesh.

                  1. You aren’t even making an argument, Fat Boy. That’s the whole point of circular reasoning. Sheesh.

          2. “I would quibble whether the “fairness doctrine” was about silencing anyone, rather than a hamfisted government attempt to try to create artificial “balance”, but that is for another discussion.”

            That’s because you’re a moron. Or lying again.

          3. “Authoritarians of all stripes tend to want to do this, yes.“

            So we should ignore the ones that want to do it in the here and now?

          4. Cribble all you want, the furnace doctrine was explicitly invoked to silence voices on the right. And not just any voices. One man in particular. It was entirely aimed at Rush Limbaugh. They didn’t hide it. They said it out loud.

            And when that failed, they convinced a billionaire to fund Air America for them. Which also failed. But that’s okay, because we got MSNBC out of that.

            1. He knows this. He can’t help being dishonest.

            2. The Fairness Doctrine was an FCC policy that was enacted in 1949 and was terminated in 1987. I find it hard to believe that the Fairness Doctrine was aimed at silencing Rush Limbaugh, when Limbaugh wasn’t even born until 1951.

              1. He said the left wanted to revive it specifically to target Limbaugh, you disingenuous lardass.

        3. “Pretending that the issue is one of free association is not just a canard at this point, it is a deliberate lie.”

          Well it’s Lying Jeffy so…

  43. There are few things scarier than a bipartisan policy.

  44. It takes a special kind of “libertarian” to complain that the problem with left-wing media bias is that it energizes the Right.

    1. Conservatives WON’T STOP POUNCING

  45. Anyone been following the World Economic Forum with headquarters in Cologny, Switzerland ? This is an International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation full of oligarchs and high ranking politicians who condemn what they label, “nationalists”, in pursuit of absolute power over all the Earth. And globalization led us into two world wars. All you really need to know about, “Wokeness”, is that communism is for those who rule everything, and socialism is for the masses of peons below them.

  46. Is the abandonment of libertarian free market principles by the right surprising?

    When libertarians responded to the libertarian moment (on the right) with utter contempt for the right?

    It really isn’t that hard to figure out. Conservatives looked at libertarians for years and saw, when it was their rights and liberties at stake, libertarians grudgingly acknowledged them, regrettable as they might be, but treated it as no big deal if they were violated. Conservatives looked on as libertarians (or some libertarians) insisted that coercive demands that people “respect their gender” was a major win for bodily autonomy. Conservatives looked on as libertarians excoriated companies expressing conservative values (even if they were opposed to government intervention) while self-righteously repeating principles of private property for companies pushing a leftist agenda. Conservatives watched as libertarians learned to love the national security establishment (after decades of warnings) because Bad Orange Man.

    Libertarianism had its libertarian moment on the right. It had its chance to win them over. Heck, I’d say I’m one of those people who it did win over. But, it should hardly shock libertarians when conservatives decide to move on from their interest when the response from libertarians is to play fast and loose with libertarian principle when it comes to opportunities to reject them and embrace their opponents.

    1. You must not have been around when conservatives in YAF showed utter contempt for the “lazy fairy” libertarians and purged them from their ranks.

      1. Yet, oddly, for some reason, the staff of Reason were celebrating a “libertarian moment” after that based on developments that were happening on the right.

        One organization acted like a bunch of idiots. Meanwhile the entire Tea Party emerged with conservatives starting to embrace libertarian principles. But, hey, there was some clown in one of the audiences who resented Social Security being diverted to social spending. That definitely negates the whole thing.

    2. When did a libertarian moment on the right occur?

      1. Pretty much the whole libertarian moment that Welch and Gillespie wrote their book about occurred amongst conservatives.

        1. Are you referring to the Trump Presidency?

        2. In this comment above, you refer to the emergence of the Tea Party:

          https://reason.com/2021/06/01/liberal-media-coverage-is-boosting-conservative-nationalists/#comment-8930471

          That was at the end of the George W. Bush presidency, so 2009. Over 11 years ago.

          1. Oddly your original question is not prefaced “within the last 5 years.”

            Also lower taxes and regulations are libertarian dummy. Same with no new wars. And even responsive tariffs are argued in various libertarian lines as valid as they are responsive to others initializing anti market practices.

            But you’re not a libertarian.

        3. Welch and Fonzie are unrecognizable now. Their frequent appearances on Red Eye and FNC a decade ago is wjat brought me (back) here.

          Now they are pro-woke establishmentarians

    3. So you’re saying conservatives moved away from libertarians because libertarians went Woke. Where and when exactly did that happen? Speaking for myself, I never did those things you mentioned. Citation, please.

      1. Jo just last election season endorsed anti racism. Whether through ignorance or not it happened. 4 years prior weld told everyone to bake that cake

        1. These were the LP Big-Wigs JoJo, BWeld, and GayJay, not the movement as a whole or even the LP as a whole. So Bill Delasio still needs to make a citation.

    4. See, that is part of the problem here.

      For instance, it is not enough for you that libertarians support right to own guns just like most on the right does. You also demand that libertarians *embrace* guns. Libertarians have to embrace guns on a *cultural* level.

      For instance, it is not enough for you that libertarians support free speech rights on the Internet. You also demand that libertarians embrace the right-wing *cultural* narrative of widespread oppression by Big Tech against poor innocent conservative victims.

      You want allies for emotional support, not principled advocates of liberty.

      1. Libertarians have to embrace guns on a *cultural* level.

        Ummm…no. I never said that. It might help to address the arguments I’ve made and not the ones from the voices in your head.

        Supporting a right to own a gun while denouncing gun ownership, like it or not, is taking a cultural position. Just as much as embracing gun ownership. Insisting that Big Tech censorship of conservatives is legitimate, not only because it’s their property, but also smearing the conservatives as tin-foil hat conspiracy theorists spreading disinformation is taking a cultural stand. Claiming that some dumb laws, such as lockdowns and mask mandates, should still be obeyed while others merit disobedience (a position specifically advocated in a recent Reason podcast) is taking a cultural position.

        And the cultural positions taken here, from a conservative perspective, look consistently hostile. It looks to conservatives that, sure, libertarians might agree with them in principle. But, when it comes to picking and choosing battles, meh, the application of libertarian principle to their issues is a lot less important than Mexicans, pot, and butt-sex.

        1. No, I’m right. Even you admit that “libertarians might agree with them in principle”, but that is not enough. You demand a cultural alliance, beyond simply principled agreement.

          Supporting a right to own a gun while denouncing gun ownership, like it or not, is taking a cultural position.

          I’m not aware of anyone around here who actually “denounces” gun ownership, but hey, let’s take it a face value. Right-wingers and libertarians agree – the right to own guns should be protected. That is the principle of the matter. Beyond that, why should it matter to you? Because you don’t actually want people who only agree with you on principle. You want people who share your cultural proclivities as well.

          1. If you don’t have an at least somewhat libertarian culture, you will never get a remotely libertarian government.

            1. So, are you saying that to have a libertarian culture, we all have to own guns or just that we have to support the right to own guns? Is actual gun ownership a part of libertarian culture?

              1. Is actual gun ownership a part of libertarian culture?

                My thought would be no. No more than drug use. But, denigrating or fetishizing either to the point of defining tribes of equal importance to principle is when you see a breakdown of libertarian culture.

              2. Holy fuck you and Jeff are off the idiocy deep end. Nobody has made that strawman argument idiot.

          2. Not denouncing my cultural proclivities =/= sharing my cultural proclivities.

            It’s really pretty simple. And culture determines the degree of effort or care that will be applied to any particular matter of principle. Let me ask, how much faith would you be willing to put in the pronouncements of someone who said, “Drug users are pieces of shit and, if anyone deserves a beatdown, it’s them. But, I suppose they do have rights that deserve to be respected?” Especially, if you noticed that, whenever issues of the rights of drug users came up, they always found some extenuating circumstance that legitimized the violation of the drug user’s rights? But, hey, he agrees with you in principle.

            1. Pretty hilarious that a communist like Gramsci understood the importance that culture had on the spread of Marxist ideology, but it’s a complete mystery to a “radical individualist” who gets all of this media links from left-wing sources.

          3. Hint. You are never right.

          4. Bitch, you haven’t been right about anything since you claimed that preventing child molesters from entering the US was decreasing their liberty.

          5. If you say you agree with someone in principle and then shit all over them, as you do, there’s a term for that.

            1. Guess what. I don’t have to LIKE someone in order to acknowledge their inherent rights.

              Unlike right-wingers, I do not believe rights are contingent upon a person’s moral worth. Even complete scumbags have rights. Even people that I don’t like have rights.

              Once again, agreement in principle with your rights is not what you ask for. You ask for tribal solidarity.

              1. I’m sorry the correct answer was “Paying lip service”.

                Just because you say you acknowledge someone’s rights means fuckall if you turn a blind eye when they’re violated.

                And I’m not a right-winger.

              2. Unlike right-wingers, I do not believe rights are contingent upon a person’s moral worth. Even complete scumbags have rights. Even people that I don’t like have rights.

                Too bad your lefty boos don’t believe the same thing.

        2. The voices tell him lots of things

      2. I’m going to assume you’re arguing in good faith for a moment.

        Imagine if someone said, “I think people have a responsibility to respect everyone else’s rights. Except for chemjeff. Screw that guy. He’s gross.”

        Would you think they were arguing in good faith when they later said you have a responsibility to respect other people’s rights? Or would you think they’re trying to pull a fast one with you? Screw your rights but hooray for everyone else’s?

        1. But that’s not a good example. We are not talking about disagreements on principle, such as whether rights should be respected or not. We are talking about disagreements over cultural values.

          If Alice said “I think chemjeff’s rights should be respected, especially since chemjeff is such a nice guy”, and if Bob said “I think chemjeff’s rights should be respected, even though I think he is a horrible person”, then both Alice and Bob agree in principle on whether my rights should be respected or not. They disagree on my value as a human being, and sure if I wanted to hang out with a friend I would pick Alice over Bob, but when it came to rights, so what?

          But if Alice and Bob were to say analogous things about you, I suspect, that you would not acknowledge Bob’s agreement with Alice in principle and treat Bob just as badly as those who want to take away your rights.

          1. Yet, for some reason, Bob always seems to put protecting chemjeff’s rights at the bottom of his list of priorities. And we should also ignore Bob’s strange habit of explaining how what we normally think are violations of chemjeff’s rights aren’t really violations of chemjeff’s rights. Because reasons. And, of course, Bob seems to be always ready to explain how those guys violating chemjeff’s rights really meant well and we should totally respect them for their good intentions. But, hey, he announced he’s all in favor of you having rights. So, that clears the whole matter up.

            1. This is an interesting argument. You may be correct that it is just human nature to not fight as hard for the rights of someone who you dislike or mismatch with culturally, but I think it is more a sad statement of how much our society has declined that we don’t expect people to understand and stick to their principles anymore.

              1. I don’t think it’s a question of expectation. I’ve been arguing that that is what conservatives believe, at least, they have seen from a lot of libertarians. And if that’s the case, then it’s a bit silly for libertarians to complain that conservatives aren’t adhering to principles they believe libertarians have been less than scrupulous about adhering to. If they believe libertarians “bend the rules” to accommodate progressivism, it should hardly be surprising if they conclude that the rules are a farce and not useful for them.

            2. Once again thanks for proving my point. You don’t want someone who will agree with you on principle alone. You want someone who says nice things about you. So along comes Trump, who says lots and lots of nice things about you, but who doesn’t agree very much, if at all, with libertarians on principle. And the rest is history. You don’t want someone who agrees with you on principle, you want someone who is a culture warrior.

              1. How would you know.
                You’re not even a libertarian. You’re a fifty-centing, big-government authoritarian that’s paid to come here and shitpost and concern troll.

              2. That’s not what he said, at all.

                What’s even more funny is that he’s not even necessarily saying that’s how he feels. He’s telling people like you why conservatives might not be so chummy with libertarianism right now. Because a normal person has the ability to understand where different sides are coming from.

              3. I don’t know how to make this plainer to you, since you’re more interested in addressing the voices in your head than my actual arguments. Conservatives have grown more dismissive of libertarian principle because they perceive libertarians as being selective in their application of libertarian principle in practice. If they’re convinced libertarians will be outraged by any conservative breach of the NAP, but will respond to progressive breaches of the NAP with a tut-tut, a wink and a nod, it shouldn’t be any surprise that conservatives won’t feel all that bound by the NAP. Because they’ll view it as a sucker’s game. It isn’t a cultural matter. I sincerely doubt conservatives particularly care about how they’re viewed by cosmotarians. They don’t want to play by rules that they perceive as one-sided.

                1. If [conservatives are] convinced libertarians will be outraged by any conservative breach of the NAP, but will respond to progressive breaches of the NAP with a tut-tut, a wink and a nod, it shouldn’t be any surprise that conservatives won’t feel all that bound by the NAP. Because they’ll view it as a sucker’s game.

                  So what you’re telling me, is that conservatives are unable to separate an abstract principle (the NAP), from the people advocating for the principle (libertarians). If they do not like how the people who advocate for the NAP are behaving, then they are willing to toss the principle overboard in favor of people who like conservatives more, and will adopt the principles of the people who shower conservatives with praise. Like, say, unprincipled reality TV show demagogues. Is that what you are saying?

                2. Your right…left libertarians (an oxymoron) tend to be the majority at Reason. For them it comes down to nazi’s in ever basement of anyone who disagrees wit abortion post birth and open borders…they don’t seem to care about BLM rioting via a narrative that wasn’t supported by Obama’s FBI or the Fed debasing the currency or bombing the shit out of “pick your country of the week” by the left….its pretty pathetic…liberty is more than abortion, open borders and the local pot dispensary being open on sundays.

        2. Don’t ever assume good faith arguments from chemmjeff radical stateist

  47. https://twitter.com/RubinReport/status/1399772482077220865?s=19

    Has any narrative spun by the mainstream media in the last 5 years turned out to be true? Is there one major story that they didn’t get wrong and eventually retract, or just totally fabricate from the beginning?

  48. https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1399702336830795786?s=19

    Does being “very liberal” cause mental illness or does mental illness make people very liberal?

    Seems important to figure that out.
    [Graphic]

  49. https://twitter.com/Peoples_Pundit/status/1399714018911195136?s=19

    So, now that the “science” doesn’t support mask mandates, we’ve abandoned it for “respect”. [Link]

    1. Pure newspeak, not giving is taking and covering your face is respect. In the entirety of human history and even into primate behavior, there are 3 main reasons for covering the face: defense, shame, and deception/seduction. If you aren’t covering your face for defensive purposes, then how is it in any way “respect”?

  50. A D-R/left-right alliance on regulations is not new. I remember quite well Tipper Gore going nuts about heavy metal and rap lyrics in the late 80s. Of course, Al Gore was not quite the woke prog hero he is today, but the media ate it up along with stories about lyrics driving kids to suicide, drugs, rape, etc. Too bad we don’t have Frank Zappa anymore.

    1. my mom recorded Tipper on Donohue and used it against us @Sunday school. then she burned my Ozzy tapes on the grill.

      1. Like she thought that Phil Donahue was an exemplar of Christian morality? And she polluted the grill and air with burning plastic and magnetic tape?? Man, you really were traumatized as a kid. My heart goes out to you!

        1. Sweet home Alabama. Grandma burned Beatles albums.

  51. https://twitter.com/corsair21c/status/1399587305833197575?s=19

    Still blows my mind seeing pics of a beach in the 60s and 70s and fat ppl are RARE

    I don’t know exactly what happened veg oil or what exactly but shit starting going off the rails in the last 20-30yrs

    It’s insane how many 20 somethings are flab monsters

    1. The rise in obesity closely correlates with the decline in smoking. People need something to put in their mouths when they’re bored.

      1. “The rise in obesity closely correlates with the decline in smoking. ”

        Not in children. Children have never really been into smoking. It’s always been more of an adult thing.

        1. While obesity in children definitely has increased, it’s really gone up much more in adults compared with 40-50 years ago.

      2. That’s part of it. Cable, then the internet, smartphones, games and also played a part, plus the switch from healthy fats and proteins to sugar, vegetable oils and carbs.

        1. “That’s part of it. Cable, then the internet, smartphones, games and also played a part”

          The automobile too. Even the light exercise of a daily walk to and from the local bus stop was enough to keep people in shape. (15 minutes each way)

    2. It’s even more insane that an unprecedented number of 10 somethings are flab monsters. Same goes for 0 somethings. Childhood obesity is what they call it.

      1. Like Lovett sang:
        “Fat babies have no pride.
        Fat babies have no pride.
        Fat babies have no pride.
        But that’s OK. Who needs pride?”

  52. Does Mike Flynn support a military coup against the government, or doesn’t he? Hard to tell!

    https://www.mediaite.com/politics/mike-flynn-tries-to-backtrack-on-apparent-call-for-military-coup-in-united-states/

    1. Most stupid people are annoying. You are actually funny. I am not sure if it is just how gullible and predictable you are or just the raw patheticness of your posts that make them so funny, but it really would take a heart of stone to not read your posts without laughing. And I mean every single one of them. You are nothing if not consistent.

    2. “I am no stranger to media manipulating my words…”

      Let’s see. They quoted precisely what Flynn said.

      1. From the URL alone: mike-flynn-tries-to-backtrack-on-apparent-call-for-military-coup-in-united-states/

        It’s like you guys expect your gaslightees to by as crap at reading comprehension as you are.

      2. Yes, he precisely said

        “No reason, I mean, it should happen here.”

        This means:

        “There is no reason that a coup should happen here.”

        You have to be malicious and stupid to interpret his statement any other way.

    3. That’s not really what he said. Neat that Mediatit manages to write two whole articles, but merely alludes to what he said rather than printing an actual unabbreviated quote.

      But the coup has already happened in the US anyway. The DNC, a half dozen media companies and tech companies and the CIA and FBI were involved. The court’s have so far egregiously evaded their duties and that’s the only reason Ron Klain’s decrepit finger-puppet now reigns.

  53. I am making 7 to 6 dollar par hour at home on laptop ,, This is make happy But now i am Working 4 hour Dailly and make 40 dollar Easily FRT .. This is enough for me to happy my family..how ?? i am making this so u can do it Easily…Visit Here

  54. No conservative nationalists are very much for a free market but the game is rigged today via the Fed and the control by the DNC of the Federal Govt, media, academia, banking and “big tech” (who is run by the usual NYC far left lvy league liberal art majors their relatives or friends at hedge funds put them into VP content jobs at FB or TWitter or Google). I’m all for the free market..but that means no special treatment for Wall Street. End the Fed, no more deficit spending by govt, no more govt buying votes and ending so called “credit creation.” Tie the dollar to gold and that would solve our trade deficit pretty darn quick..

    And stop the cultural marxism that is infecting our great Republic

  55. When was this? Libertarians have known that businesses will collude with government ever since Adam Smith told us they would. Every libertarian thinker since then has reinforced that. Don’t confuse us libertarians with the radical propertarians.

    Or to put it another way, these business are NOT being left alone, they are being given the special favors they beg government for. Cronyism, regulatory capture, etc. It’s all just different facets of economic facism: the partnership of state and business.
    ( https://wapexclusive.com )The solution to “Big Business” is to make government small enough that it has no special favors to hand out. Big Man To Lead Us is the antithesis of that.

  56. Liberal Media Coverage Is Boosting Conservative Nationalists

    Why are you holding back? Just release your inner neo-Marxist and call us all “white supremacists” and “Nazis”. You know you want to, ENB!

  57. The irony is that to the extent that “the system is rigged to benefit the rich and powerful at the expense of the working class”, it is almost entirely *because* of government intervention. The whole point of regulatory agencies is to give the two-faction oligarchy favors to sell to already established players in markets. The cost of regulations falls especially heavily on smaller competitors and serves much more effectively to preclude startups than any private collusion among the big boys.

  58. They say, a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged.
    Well, conservatives have been mugged by the tech oligarchs. And they aren’t going to sit by and say “Please sir, may I have another?”
    Big Corporations are just as bad as Big Government.

  59. They’re part of a “growing movement on the right challenging the longstanding commitment of conservatives to limited imited government and free enterprise…

    I’d buy the “limited government and free enterprise” bit if all these corporations would refuse to take government contracts, government subsidies and government bailouts. But these corporations exist only because of Big Government.

    Consequently, they have no right to complain when the taxpayers demand some accountability for their behavior. Perhaps if REASON’s editors would deal with corporate monopolies as they exist in the real world as opposed to some ideological fantasy land, people would take REASON a little more seriously.

  60. In 2017, most republicans would have heartily voted against soda taxes in liberal cities. Free market and jobs and all that.

    Then in new BLM America, Coca Cola ran training vids in which urged employees to be less white. And then they slapped diversity quotas on their legal teams, which they eventually dropped. Now, republicans might have second thoughts about doing giant soda companies any favors.

    Reason would simply describe this as “republicans join the left to suddenly becoming anti business”, which is par for the course given their nonsensical and suicidal tendency to (1) quote “it’s private business” when giant oligarchies team up with cultural jacobins to erase and censor and all history and content deemed racist and impose their egalitarian dogma on ordinary people and (2) snipe away at relentless imperfect allies who has any real power to implement at least some libertarian agendas while smiling blithely at swelling immigrants who would vote decisively against 90% of anything libertarian.

    Most people tend to react in a certain way when they’re being targeted by mobs and establishments. They would rail against big tech censoring perfectly actionable information (covid lab leak, Hunter biden laptop) knowing precisely the threat that poses to discourse and information. If you’re libertarian positions “what can you do, it’s private” and let private companies behave like bad government, then nothing is ever going to happen.

Comments are closed.