Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Libertarian Party

'I Don't Support Mandates From Government': John Stossel Interviews Libertarian Presidential Nominee Chase Oliver

The candidate makes the case against the two-party system.

John Stossel | 6.26.2024 11:55 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
John Stossel and Libertarian presidential nominee Chase Oliver | Stossel TV
John Stossel (left) and Libertarian presidential nominee Chase Oliver (right) (Stossel TV)

Former President Donald Trump spoke at the Libertarian Party Convention, asking delegates to vote for him, promising, "I will put a libertarian in my Cabinet!"

But Libertarians nominated Chase Oliver instead.

Unlike most political candidates, Oliver learned about the world by working regular jobs.

"My first job was dishwasher," he tells me. "But then I did every job you could do….I moved into the world of logistics, moving goods from one side of the world to the other, and I got an appreciation for free markets."

For my new video, I grill Oliver about what it means to be a libertarian.

"Someone who allows you to live your life in peace, free from government intrusion," he answers.

"Don't Democrats and Republicans basically believe that?" I ask.

"They love to talk the talk about freedom," he says, "but they push government programs that invade your privacy, your business, your life."

What about the poor and the helpless?

"Just because I don't want the government to help people," Oliver answers, "doesn't mean that we don't need to help people."

He argues that private individuals will do a better job.

Two years ago, Oliver ran for the senate in Georgia, got about 2 percent of the vote, and forced a runoff between Democrat Raphael Warnock and Republican Herschel Walker. When Warnock won the seat, some Republicans called Oliver a "spoiler."

Oliver replies, "You can't spoil something that's already rotten. Approval ratings of Congress and the president are always below 50 percent….People are sick and tired of the two-party system."

Recent polls suggest a libertarian candidate takes votes from both Biden and Trump.

Ben Shapiro criticizes Oliver, saying, "He supported the employer vaccine mandates…the least libertarian policy in human history."

Oliver replies, "I don't support mandates from government."

He just argued that private store owners should have the right to set policies at their store. "You as a consumer then have a choice: 'Will I work at this business or take my talent elsewhere?' A lot of businesses who required vaccines probably lost good talent to firms that didn't. That's the way the marketplace is supposed to react, not government."

Like many Libertarians, Oliver supports mostly open borders.

I ask, "You would let anybody in, who's not a criminal?"

"Yeah, come through a port of entry to declare who you are. If you're not dangerous, come right through."

"How can we have open borders when America has become a welfare state?" I ask. "People would come here to freeload!"

"We need to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time," he responds. "We can oppose the welfare state while fixing the immigration crisis."

Libertarians don't think America should police the world. Oliver is the most anti-war candidate.

"I started out in the Democratic Party," he recounts, "An anti-war protestor opposing the Bush wars. [Then] I realized it wasn't really an anti-war party, it was an anti-Bush party masquerading as an anti-war party. Libertarians [are] the real anti-war party."

When it comes to what I fear is the biggest threat to America's future, Oliver doesn't pander like the Republicans and Democrats, who claim they will "protect" Social Security.

"People around the age of 40, we recognize that even if we contribute to Social Security, we're never going to get those benefits because of how unsustainable this system is."

He's right. Both Social Security and Medicare are going broke.

"We have to sound the alarm that Social Security is unsustainable and frankly, if you were given your wealth back, you could just put that into the marketplace and earn a far better retirement than what the government's providing you in their Ponzi scheme of Social Security."

I point out that politicians who admit that don't win elections.

"You have to be bold in your principles," he responds, "even if it costs you a few votes."

Now you know a little more about this year's Libertarian presidential candidate. I'll expand in a future column.

COPYRIGHT 2024 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: A Government Veto on Speech at the Supreme Court

John Stossel is the host and creator of Stossel TV.

Libertarian PartyElection 2024Campaigns/ElectionsElectionsLibertarianismFreedomDonald TrumpJobsFree MarketsGovernmentBig GovernmentDemocratic PartyRepublican PartyPrivacyBusiness and IndustryPovertyCharity/PhilanthropyGeorgiaCongressSenateJoe BidenVaccinesVaccine mandatesCoronavirusPandemicImmigrationOpen BordersCrimeWelfareWelfare ReformWarEndless WarForeign PolicyGeorge W. BushSocial SecurityMedicareMedicare reformEntitlementsTwo-party system
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (134)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Don't look at me!   11 months ago

    Hopeless.

    1. Commenter_XY   11 months ago

      That is the truth. Is Team L for real? This Oliver Joker is the best Team L can do?

      Bring back Jo 'Gotta love BLM' Jorgensen.

      How can you take Team L seriously when they nominate a completely unserious candidate.

    2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   11 months ago

      In a hilarious sort of way.

    3. Wizzle Bizzle   11 months ago

      I was contemplating some snarky reply. But honestly, I've got nothing that comes closer to the mark than "hopeless."

      We are fucked. And we (collectively) deserve the fucking.

    4. diver64   11 months ago

      That clown is not only why the Libertarian Party will never get anywhere and also Exhibit 1 as to why ranked choice voting is a disaster

  2. sarcasmic   11 months ago

    Ben Shapiro twists what someone says into something totally different than what the person obviously meant? I’m shocked! I’m also guessing he’s got more than a few fans (and students) in these comments.

    1. MT-Man   11 months ago

      Regardless of Chase, Ben is a conservative smart guy in the business to make a lot of money. He does it well to his audience, I mean are any of us shocked from the View or Rachel Maddow?

      1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   11 months ago

        Or Scarborough and his bitch.

      2. sarcasmic   11 months ago

        True. He's also really good at bad faith argumentation. He dishonestly twists words to mean different things, he dishonestly slips in false premises to be use later, and otherwise uses dishonest rhetorical tricks to make great arguments against things his opponent never said. Kind of like Jesse.

        1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   11 months ago

          You got that from a single statement without the full discourse did you?

        2. Don't look at me!   11 months ago

          Sarc talks about people, not ideas.

    2. Spiritus Mundi   11 months ago

      Bet Chase feels differently about private store owners getting rid of gay employees.

      1. Mother's Lament (June is Banana Republic Month, celebrate responsibly)   11 months ago

        That's (D)ifferent. Now bake the cake bigot.

      2. sarcasmic   11 months ago

        He seems pretty principled to me, so I doubt it.

        1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   11 months ago

          His website literally discussed extra protections for favored groups like LGBT you fucking retard.

          1. Don't look at me!   11 months ago

            Hey, that’s a principle.

          2. chemjeff radical individualist   11 months ago

            Really? Where is that?
            I think you're lying. I've looked all over his website and I cannot find anywhere where he says that gays should get extra government protections just because they are gay.

            1. sarcasmic   11 months ago

              Oliver is gay and he used to be a Democrat. That means that he supports gay stuff and Democrat stuff. What he actually says doesn’t matter, because of him. Remember that all of Jesse’s arguments are against people. In this case a gay, former Democrat. That’s what he will argue against. Not anything Oliver actually says. Unless it can be taken out of context and twisted into something that it obviously does not mean.

              1. chemjeff radical individualist   11 months ago

                It's simple, really.
                Oliver is gay.
                That means he identifies with a left-wing identity.
                That means he agrees with everyone else who also shares a left-wing identity.
                That means he wants to throw people in jail for 'homophobia', just like all the other left-wingers.

                1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   11 months ago

                  Man you both look retarded. And both using the tried and true accusations of bigotry the left loves. Yet you claim to not be leftists.

              2. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   11 months ago

                Sarc. Youre literally projecting here. Lol.

              3. DesigNate   11 months ago

                The first time I visited his campaign site it had some stuff on LGBT issues. It seems it’s since been removed, which is probably smart politically because it’s not going to pull anyone that was going to vote for Biden and could potentially turn off everyone else.

            2. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   11 months ago

              Here you go fat ass. Looks like he removed it from his campaign sites but not news articles.

              Oliver noted his support for federal LGBTQ anti-discrimination protections,

              You didnt look very hard did you fat ass?

              https://www.wabe.org/georgia-gops-top-candidates-move-harder-right-on-lgbtq-issues/

              1. chemjeff radical individualist   11 months ago

                Oh so you lied when you said it was on his campaign site. Got it.

                I looked exactly where you said to look.

                Oliver noted his support for federal LGBTQ anti-discrimination protections,

                Well, I guess that makes him not a pure doctrinaire Libertarian. Oh noez! He is only 95% Libertarian! I guess that means the solution is to vote for a guy who is only accidentally 5% libertarian and that is on a good day.

                1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   11 months ago

                  Are you that fucking stupid that you don’t think websites or campaign sites ever change you retarded fucking marxist? Lol.

                  The information is there for you. Sorry I dont stalk his fucking website day to day you miserable fat fuck.

                  Please tell me how favored protections for special classes is equal treatment, a core tenet of libertarianism. You’d understand this if you weren’t a leftist cosplaying Jeffrey. Good lord.

                  The information exists. There is another comment just above that said the same thing. You were wrong. Instead of admitting it you laughably try to pretend campaign sites don’t change. Youre retarded Jeffrey.

                  Chase is, as described in another thread, an AI generated caricature of a white gay libertarian as trained by Wikipedia. He has almost no depth and no intelligence on anything. Like you and sarc.

                  1. chemjeff radical individualist   11 months ago

                    Be a man and take responsibility for your lies. Don't try to blame someone else.

                    You lied about the content of Oliver's website.

                    In another discussion, you lied about Oliver's positions on transgender issues.

                    If he is such a bad candidate, it should be easy for you to criticize him for his actual views without having to lie about them.

                    You're just a pathetic little man.

                    1. Don't look at me!   11 months ago

                      You lost this round. Take the L.

                    2. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   11 months ago

                      Jeff loses every round.

    3. Mother's Lament (June is Banana Republic Month, celebrate responsibly)   11 months ago

      Using the Buttplug Anti-Semitism Soros Standards did Sarckles just say he hates Jews?

      1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   11 months ago

        Yes he did!

    4. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   11 months ago

      Sarc, like Chase, is too stupid to see how government actually pushed the mandates out under threat to get business to do its bidding.

      Sarc is a fascist though.

    5. NealAppeal   11 months ago

      Ideas!

      1. sarcasmic   11 months ago

        Dlam has a new sock that is desperate for attention. How cute. Mute.

        1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   11 months ago

          Talks about people, not principles.

    6. diver64   11 months ago

      Actually, no he doesn't. The problem the left has with him is that he is smarter than they are.

  3. shadydave   11 months ago

    "I don't support mandates from government."

    You honestly think these stores wanted to force their customers to wear masks or their employees to get vaccines? No, of course not. Why would they even care?

    So why did they? Because while the government didn't explicitly force them, the government made it so they could get sued into oblivion if they didn't. I don't know how many times I have to say this, but CDC recommendations are not mere suggestions, they come with a set of legal protections and expose those who don't follow them to excessive liability. He either should know this and doesn't which is disqualifying. Or does know this but doesn't care because he clearly agreed with said mandates (which is obvious from his tweets). Which is extremely disqualifying.

    He's a progressive who became disillusioned that the Democratic party wasn't progressive enough. I mean that's fine, but my god that's miles away from being even remotely libertarian.

    1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   11 months ago

      He also thinks it just peachy that states punish parents for misgendering confused children whose teachers can legally refuse to tell the parents how they have brainwashed the kids into having one of 57 different genders, and it's just peachy that states can throw parents in jail for not affirming that same brainwashed confused with genital mutilation surgery and puberty blockers.

      1. sarcasmic   11 months ago

        Is that what he meant when he said those issues should be decided by parents and doctors, not the government?

        1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   11 months ago

          Oh go away. That's been refuted well enough to send Misek running for the hills. A little pipsqueak like you is just noise.

          1. sarcasmic   11 months ago

            I missed it. How was that refuted? Calling him names? Saying that because he’s gay he’s genetically a leftist pedophile? Because he used to be a Democrat he’s really a progressive in libertarian clothing? Taking something he said out of context? Those are the usual ways to refute what someone says around here.

            1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   11 months ago

              A) because he said government was involved for surgeries.
              B) the CASS report has basically destroyed all transgender medical activism and exposed the lies.

              But I don't expect you to be educated.

        2. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   11 months ago

          And here sarc lies about what chase said. Because chase put a government decision line on surgeries but not drugs.

          Sarc remains ignorant to reality while reading bumper stickers.

          1. Quicktown Brix   11 months ago

            Sarc asks a fair question though; one I’d like to know the answer to.

            Did he explicitly say people should be punished for misgendering or is this just an inferred position?

            1. Social Justice is neither   11 months ago

              He's most certainly not standing up against it.

            2. sarcasmic   11 months ago

              The only thing Trump’s Deranged Supporters know or care about is that he is gay and he used to be a Democrat. That’s it. Everything they say about him follows from that. Remember that they always argue against the person. Stated policies don't matter. He's gay. He used to be a Democrat. What else does anyone need to know?

              1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   11 months ago

                Funny, that’s not what anyone is saying, you drunken retard.

                1. sarcasmic   11 months ago

                  Of course they don't say that is no many words. They just take their favorite gay or Democrat policy that they like to argue against, claim he supports it, and proceed to argue against it.

                  1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   11 months ago

                    sarcasmic 3 hours ago
                    Flag Comment
                    Mute User
                    True. He’s also really good at bad faith argumentation. He dishonestly twists words to mean different things, he dishonestly slips in false premises to be use later, and otherwise uses dishonest rhetorical tricks to make great arguments against things his opponent never said.

                    This you just above?

              2. Quicktown Brix   11 months ago

                Sure, but I haven't found Á àß... to be deranged even if he is a Trump supporter.

                1. sarcasmic   11 months ago

                  I have seen Oliver on many an occasion say that the decisions Alphabet claims he wants to be made by government should be between doctors and parents.

                  For Alphabet to claim otherwise means he's a liar, he's deranged, or he knows something that I do not. If it's the last one I hope he shares.

                  1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   11 months ago

                    Again, pure dishonesty and ignorance. You even claimed to listen to the Liz Wolfe interview. He had a governmental line barring those decisions. Youre lying about what he said. His line is surgery. And it makes no sense as a line.

                    1. Quicktown Brix   11 months ago

                      I also listened to the JAQ interview, but don't recall him saying anything about misgendering. He did clarify his mandate against surgery on minors, but not puberty blockers

                    2. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   11 months ago

                      Why do you keep bringing up misgendering when sarc was discussing doctors?

                    3. Gaear Grimsrud   11 months ago

                      He claimed without evidence that puberty blockers are reversible. And then drew a legal line between medications and surgery. Even Liz wasn't buying it.

                  2. Quicktown Brix   11 months ago

                    OK. Thanks for the info.

              3. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   11 months ago

                The standard leftist talking point has gone out declaring opponents bigots it seems.

            3. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   11 months ago

              My comment had nothing to do with misgendering. Here is sarcs question:

              sarcasmic 3 hours ago
              Flag Comment
              Mute User
              Is that what he meant when he said those issues should be decided by parents and doctors, not the government?

              What do doctors have to do with misgendering?

              Chase answered exactly as I stated multiple times including the Liz Wolfe interview. He is for a government setting a line, but only the line he agrees with, in regards to transitioning.

              His like makes no logically consistent argument. He, in the same interview and others, think pills are reversible. They are not. They lead to cancers, sterilization, osteoporosis and other issues. Long term issues.

              Chase is ignorant on the topic.

              1. chemjeff radical individualist   11 months ago

                He is for a government setting a line, but only the line he agrees with, in regards to transitioning.

                That is true. But, that is true for EVERYONE, with the possible exception of anarchists. Your problem is that you are pretending that it's possible to not have a line at all, and are condemning Chase for drawing one.

                But this is all just window-dressing and rationalization anyway. We both know the real reason why you don't like Chase is because he does not place opposing left-wing ideas and culture as his fundamental priority. Instead, he's a libertarian.

                1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   11 months ago

                  The only logical line is the one that doesn’t produce long term harm to a child fat ass. The drugs may even be worse due to long term medical issues such as cancer. But you dont care about science, you have activism. Just like how you justify migrants raping teenagers.

                  Chase is because he does not place opposing left-wing ideas and culture as his fundamental priority. Instead, he’s a libertarian.

                  How is this idiocy working out for you and sarc? I guess you hate being exposed as the leftists you are. Supporting censorship, mandates, forced charity, welfare causing immigration, locking up political opponents.

                  And as for Chase, he is a shallow caricature of a libertine with no depth. Much like sarc. No depth. You meanwhile are a cultural marxist cosplaying.

                  How much did you get paid for recruiting sarc?

                  1. chemjeff radical individualist   11 months ago

                    The only logical line is the one that doesn’t produce long term harm to a child

                    This is the same thing that Chase Oliver is doing - drawing a line - but you are pretending that yours is the only logical one, when in reality, it is "only the line that you agree with", as you accused Chase of doing.

                    Your line is not even a well-thought-out one. Your line would for example prohibit pediatric chemotherapy, because that treatment often results in sterility. That sounds like a "long term harm", doesn't it?

                    1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   11 months ago

                      There is no logical line from him. Hence why you didn't defend his line.

                      And then you go back to the retarded response regarding treatment for cancer. Which is a retarded WPATH argument not even they actually believe.

                      The CASS report already put to bed the suicide reduction for transitioning. But you domt care about facts, just advocacy.

                      Cancer leads to death.

                      Pretending to be the opposite gender does not. And it for sure is not fixed with drugs and surgery unlike chemotherapy attacking the cause of death in cancer.

                      You are seriously retarded Jeffrey.

                    2. chemjeff radical individualist   11 months ago

                      There is no logical line from him.

                      That's not true. His logical line is 'no surgical transition before age 18'. That was right from his Just Asking Questions interview which I know you listened to because you keep referencing it here. So you are outright lying about him. Why?

                      Your line, however, is retarded and would prohibit even valid treatments like pediatric chemotherapy.

                      This conversation started when you condemned Oliver for 'drawing a line', unfairly, because EVERYONE draws a line, even yourself. Which you just demonstrated. And so now that we've moved on from that, you are lying about what that line is or even on the propriety of drawing a line.

                      But this is all kabuki because we both know you are going to condemn Oliver no matter what he says or does because your fundamental objection to him isn't based on any policy position, it is because of his association in your mind with left-wing culture.

                  2. chemjeff radical individualist   11 months ago

                    You meanwhile are a cultural marxist cosplaying.

                    Oh, this makes the whole 'cultural marxism' accusations so much more revealing now. I get it!

                    So if a person has an affinity for left-wing culture and identity, that necessarily means that person is a 'cultural Marxist'. Isn't that what you believe?

                    Tell us Jesse, if a person, during a pandemic, decides to hold a gathering with friends, but voluntarily wearing masks and voluntarily socially distancing, is that person a 'cultural Marxist'?

                    1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   11 months ago

                      You quote tweet Sulu and Katie Hill for fucks sake Jeffrey.

                      You never defended voluntary action. You demanded compliance with government mandates.

                      You literally stated government had to force people because they wouldn't comply. You used a retarded bears in trunk example.

                      Nothing you said during covid was voluntary you ridiculous authoritarian fuck. Lol.

                      Can even go back to other cultural marxist values. 2+2=5. DEI. ESG. Calling yourself a socialist libertarian. And basically propping up every fucking leftist demand. You even said welfare was necessary because people didn't voluntarily donate enough to charity.

                      To think you've spent 10 years here and have been able to convince one dumbass alcoholic from Maine. Lol.

              2. Quicktown Brix   11 months ago

                I see. I read Sarc's comment differently: that he was challenging that Chase ever attacked misgenderers because his public statements have only been about puberty blockers and surgery. I get your point though.

                1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   11 months ago

                  I dont think chase has said a word on just misgendering. His most public statements are allowed treatments and he has no principled stance there.

                  He has had Twitter comments in the past regarding special privileges and protections as linked for Jeff above.

                  He has been utterly silent on the attempts by schools and democrats to put themselves between all other cases outside of allowing children to transition through drugs.

                  No comments on cps for not affirming.
                  No comments on disallowing non teans supporting adoptive parents.
                  No comments on schools hiding transitions.

                  His silence in that area is pretty fucking deafening.

                  His principle seems to be in only one place, transition drugs for kids despite permanent harm caused by the drugs.

                  1. Quicktown Brix   11 months ago

                    Thanks. Good info here.

                    1. sarcasmic   11 months ago

                      Took fuckstain off mute to see the good info.

                      Didn't see any.

                      You just got a lack of info and an invitation to fill in the blanks with your imagination.

                    2. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   11 months ago

                      Poor sarc.

                      Never muted. You can drop the facade already.

                  2. chemjeff radical individualist   11 months ago

                    He has been utterly silent on the attempts by schools and democrats to put themselves between all other cases outside of allowing children to transition through drugs.

                    And because he has been "utterly silent", Jesse "helpfully" fills in the blanks by assuming that Oliver is going to subscribe to left-wing ideas of the government punishing parents for 'misgendering'. Isn't that right?

                    It is all about Oliver's supposed left-wing culture and identity. It has precious little to do with his actual policies or principles. Because Oliver is not knee-jerk opposed to left-wing culture, he must be opposed!

                    1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   11 months ago

                      Hey look. More dishonest argumentation from Jeff. Generally when one is against state intervention they discuss all intervention. Yet he chooses not to. His thoughts are pretty well known on the issue despite you playing retarded.

                    2. chemjeff radical individualist   11 months ago

                      By your standard, since you have been utterly silent on the civil war in Sudan, you must support and approve of all the rape, torture and murder that is going on there as a result of that war. I mean, you haven't said anything about it, have you? So therefore I get to fill in the blanks and put words in your mouth about what you supposedly really believe.

                      His thoughts are pretty well known on the issue

                      Because you can read his thoughts now? I thought he has been 'utterly silent'.

                2. sarcasmic   11 months ago

                  When someone doesn’t say something about something, Jesse fills in the blanks with lies and attacks anyone who disagrees. I don’t know why you acknowledge him when he’s lied to you several times in this thread alone. I keep the fucker on mute so I’m not tempted to clarify when he lies about things I’ve said by taking things out of context or claiming my words mean something other than what they plainly mean.

                  1. Quicktown Brix   11 months ago

                    I often disagree with Jesse, but he definitely reads more on these political topics than I do and he's been an excellent at sharing citations. He's changed my perspective more than once, even if he's abrasive at times.

                    1. sarcasmic   11 months ago

                      He’s changed my perspective more than once

                      The only thing he has changed my perspective on is that I used to care about what people say, and thanks to him I really don't give a fuck anymore. To me he's a middle-school bully and nothing more.

                    2. Quicktown Brix   11 months ago

                      Yeah, you do take the abuse around here...

                    3. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   11 months ago

                      Sarc caring about what people say…

                      sarcasmic 5 months ago
                      Flag Comment
                      Mute User
                      I don’t consider links from you guys to be information. I’ve clicked a couple and never found them useful. It has to be from, or confirmed by, someone other than a raving right-wing lunatic for me to give it consideration.
                      *shrug*

                      Oh wait. You have a preferred narrative, information be damned.

                      And I'm a brassiere largely due to the intentional ignorance of people like jeff and sarc. Go back 5 years and I was primarily just citing info. But these retards, and Mike, would ask for links, be given them, then deny they were ever given. So now they get zero respect.

                  2. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   11 months ago

                    Way to follow jeff like a good puppy. Good boy.

    2. Moderation4ever   11 months ago

      One of the most conservative businessmen in Wisconsin was one of the first to require masks in his stores. Why because he wants his customers to feel safe in his stores. Staying in business during Covid meant making you customers feel safe, businesses that did this succeeded.

      1. Don't look at me!   11 months ago

        Why aren’t they still insisting on masks today?

      2. Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   11 months ago

        No idiot. If they had t gone along with CDC recommendations it would hav eopemed them up to massive legal liability.

        You really are in the wrong place to peddle that bullshit.

      3. Earth-based Human Skeptic   11 months ago

        Hey, who made people feel so unsafe that business owners had to pander to panic in order to stay in business (not to mention laws or official threats)?

    3. chemjeff radical individualist   11 months ago

      You honestly think these stores wanted to force their customers to wear masks or their employees to get vaccines?

      Yes. Believe it or not, some people actually agree with the government of their own free will, not out of coercion, not out of even implied coercion.

      1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   11 months ago

        When threatened. Sure. But for a year fat jeffrey? like when they were arresting paddle borders, shutting down gyms, threatening insurers?

        Why did democrat governors have to threaten people if it was all voluntary?

        Youre a fucking statist.

        Let me guess. This is your next excuse for migrants raping teenagers. She wanted to comply with the rapers. No harm.

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   11 months ago

          No, not when threatened. Voluntarily. It's possible!

          For example, this is what the CDC recommends:

          https://www.cdc.gov/oral-health/prevention/oral-health-tips-for-adults.html

          Practice good oral hygiene. Brush your teeth well twice a day and floss between your teeth to remove dental plaque.

          Do you brush your teeth, Jesse? If so, is it because you were forced by the government to do so? Or is it because you are voluntarily agreeing with the government in this case?

          1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   11 months ago

            I thoroughly enjoy how you ignore what was written because it destroys your entire narrative and switch it to brushing teeth. Lol.

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   11 months ago

              Your refusal to answer my question is an admission of your defeat.

              1. Don't look at me!   11 months ago

                You are bad at this.

        2. chemjeff radical individualist   11 months ago

          And I never made any excuses for migrants raping anyone. Fuck off with your slanderous lie.

          1. sarcasmic   11 months ago

            Replying to him is difficult because if you don't address his lies he will claim your failure to refute them as confirmation of them being true, but if you take the time to you respond to them all you have a huge post before getting to what you were planning to say.

            It’s best to not say anything at all.

            1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   11 months ago

              Sarc, you look extra retarded when this has been a topic with citable evidence for 3 fucking days.

              But this is the person you are. You don't care about reality. Just your leftist allies.

          2. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   11 months ago

            Oh..

            https://reason.com/2024/06/24/byo-a-c/?comments=true#comment-10615352

            Really?

            https://reason.com/2024/06/25/americas-mayors-say-the-heartland-needs-immigrants/?comments=true#comment-10616918

            Let me guess. You never said police could shoot people for trespassing?

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   11 months ago

              Yes, really. I think juveniles should be treated in the juvenile justice system, and adults should be treated in the adult justice system. Nothing about anything I said constitutes "making excuses for rape". The only reason you say that is because I disagree with YOUR preferred punishment for rape, not that I think rape should go unpunished at all. That is your tiny binary black/white mind at work: either one must agree with you in totality or one is an evil monster. I'm just fucking tired of your stupidity on the matter.

              1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   11 months ago

                Most of them got zero jail time for gang rape you lying ignorant fuck. You claimed some maybe just masturbated on her. You claimed they didn't know better.

                What the fuck is wrong with you fucking pedophile.

                1. Don't look at me!   11 months ago

                  He wished he was there.

                2. chemjeff radical individualist   11 months ago

                  Most of them got zero jail time for gang rape

                  Which is not the same as “no punishment”.

                  What is the appropriate punishment for each of the 9 defendants? Hmm? You seem to know all the details of this case and stand ready to pass judgment on all of them. What is the legally correct punishment?

                  You're doing the same thing that ML does. He doesn't argue honestly either most of the time. When he doesn't have a logical response, he just responds with 'how dare you' outbursts of outrage. It is called an appeal to emotion.

                  You claimed they didn’t know better.

                  that is a lie

                  1. Don't look at me!   11 months ago

                    If it were my little girl, they all deserved to die.

    4. CE   11 months ago

      The California government forced stores to implement mask mandates. As soon as the state mandates were lifted, almost every store made masks optional.

      1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   11 months ago

        Same in Arizona. Don't tell fat jeff.

  4. Dillinger   11 months ago

    his answers read like my 19 y.o. niece gave them.

    1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   11 months ago

      He has zero depth. It may even be elevation instead of depth.

  5. Spiritus Mundi   11 months ago

    Does he know about Aleppo?

    1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   11 months ago

      Possibly Alicko.

      1. Wizzle Bizzle   11 months ago

        Flawless

  6. Mother's Lament (June is Banana Republic Month, celebrate responsibly)   11 months ago

    ‘I Don’t Support Mandates From Government’*

    *"Currently, tee hee."

  7. mad.casual   11 months ago

    "You can't spoil something that's already rotten. Approval ratings of Congress and the president are always below 50 percent…."

    How obliviously cogent.

    1. damikesc   11 months ago

      Shall we discuss HIS approval ratings?

    2. A Thinking Mind   11 months ago

      I don't know if I'll ever see Congressional approval ratings over 50% again in my lifetime. Everyone approves of THEIR Congressman, it's the other 434 who are a problem. You're more likely to be generally disgruntled than pleased about something, so there's plenty there to be upset about when you have a mass of people you can be angry about.

  8. Dillinger   11 months ago

    >>Oliver is the most anti-war candidate.

    T already shown to be most anti-war president.

  9. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   11 months ago

    Did Chase once again waffle and say he doesn't owe direct mandates but is perfectly happy with coercive mandates for businesses to push mandates? The threat of federal contracts and insurance regulatory pressure did just as much during covid as a direct mandates. Don't think Chase is intelligent enough to understand this fact.

    1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   11 months ago

      He just argued that private store owners should have the right to set policies at their store.

      Yeap. Some fascism based bullshit. Does he not understand how government pressures industry?

      1. Don't look at me!   11 months ago

        How about no shirt, no shoes, no gays?

      2. minnix   11 months ago

        He just argued that private store owners should have the right to set policies at their store.

        I don't get it. So they shouldn't have this right?

  10. Uncle Jay   11 months ago

    'I Don't Support Mandates From Government'

    I call BS.
    Oliver has already gone on record supporting "regulating" speech on social media which brings me to the question, WTF happened to the LP?

    1. A Thinking Mind   11 months ago

      "I'm not anti-free speech, but I am happy that Trump was banned and think he deserved it."

    2. minnix   11 months ago

      Really? i didn't hear about this. Where can I read about it?

  11. Earth-based Human Skeptic   11 months ago

    LP now stands for Libertinian Party, right?

  12. chemjeff radical individualist   11 months ago

    Yeah I get it. Chase Oliver's biggest sin is that he is not reflexively opposed to left-wing identity and culture. It isn't about liberty or policies or the NAP. It is about his 'wrongthink' on cultural issues. Dave Smith even admits as much with his interview with Michael Malice. Smith even says that he probably agrees with Chase Oliver on most if not all of the important issues, but he's still not going to vote for Chase Oliver because, in his words, Chase "believes in the propaganda" from the left. And the "propaganda" in question was Chase's decision to celebrate Thanksgiving with his guests, during the pandemic, with masks and social distancing. Even though Chase's decision to wear masks was completely voluntary and did not involve any coercion whatsoever.

    It sure seems to me, that what the Mises Caucus really wants, is a type of 'cultural cleansing'. The highest goal should be the eradication of left-wing culture and identity, and America should only have people who reject left-wing ideas, including the rejection of cultural values that are typically associated with left-wingers.

  13. CE   11 months ago

    I didn't see Oliver listed in the CNN presidential poll.
    Did they somehow forget about the Libertarian Party?

    1. Gaear Grimsrud   11 months ago

      Everyone has forgotten about the Libertarian Party.

  14. chemjeff radical individualist   11 months ago

    I think I am better understanding now the Mises Caucus-type mindset. It goes something like this:

    The root cause of our problems isn't statism or authoritarianism or even socialism.

    The root cause of our problems is left-wing culture, aka 'cultural Marxism'.

    Because left-wing culture produces left-wing ideas, and left-wing ideas are inevitably oppressive, statist, and tyrannical.

    So it is the job of good libertarians everywhere to oppose left-wing culture. Even if there are no implications for coercion or force or NAP violations. Because stopping left-wing culture is 'nipping the problem in the bud'. It is stopping presumed NAP violations pre-emptively.

    So when Chase Oliver says that he wore masks voluntarily during the pandemic, that is a problem even though nobody's liberty was violated and there was no coercion. It was a problem because it was an expression of support for a left-wing idea that was produced by left-wing culture. It shows that Chase Oliver has been infected by the 'woke mind virus' and because of that, it doesn't matter how much he SAYS he opposes government coercion. In the end, the virus is in control, and he will turn into a left-wing authoritarian indistinguishable from your typical BernieBro pushing socialized healthcare.

    The solution is to purge anyone who shows signs of being infected by the 'woke mind virus'. And to show that you are not infected with the virus, it is not enough to simply say you oppose left-wing ideas. You have to forcefully denounce everything that is associated with left-wing culture or identity. You can't listen to NPR or watch CNN, you can't drive a Subaru, you can't list preferred pronouns. Which means you must adopt traditional, conservative, right-wing culture. It doesn't mean you have to be a Republican, but it does mean you have to act and behave indistinguishably from other Republicans.

    In the end, the goal is a 'culturally cleansed' society free of the 'woke mind virus', and then and only then can we have liberty upon the land.

    Am I close? I think I'm close here.

    1. sarcasmic   11 months ago

      You're not far off at all. I listen to a few podcasters who attended the Libertarian Convention, and they said basically the same thing. That the Mises guys are more interested in opposing the left than anything else.

      That's not necessarily a bad thing. Except that it's not libertarian. It's conservative. Conservativism came about in opposition to the Progressive administrative state. And that's great. Problem is that while conservativism and libertarianism have a lot of overlap, they aren't the same thing.

      1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   11 months ago

        I get it. This is what the liberaltatians are saying and it defends your leftist narratives from attack. So you and Jeff just make random bullshit up about opponents motivations while crying people discuss your motivations. The irony is palpable.

        Your comment is especially hilarious as your fake leftist allies claiming to be libertarians in the Liz Wolfe article are literally decrying thr conservatives and only being against them. Lol.

        But you and Jeff are too stupid to realize it.

        Extra bit of irony is I call out the majority of the GOP constantly. You two rush to defend every leftist action in every fucking thread. Utterly hilarious.

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   11 months ago

          I love how you validate my thesis above while trying not to.

          For instance, in another discussion, you criticized me for re-tweeting George Takei. You didn't mention any specific tweet that you thought was objectionable, you just thought that the mere fact that I would re-tweet a man who is clearly identified with the left was completely unacceptable and worthy of condemnation. Why? It's because the contents of whatever tweet it was is completely irrelevant to you. It's the fact that I am associating with a man of the left that is the objection. Just associating with the left in any way is enough to earn condemnation. Which is my central thesis above. To you all, it's not about policies or principles. It is about opposing the left, and that is fundamentally why you object to Chase Oliver, because he associates *culturally* with the left to a certain degree. (He is a former Democrat! OMG!) (Of course, so is Trump, but we won't talk about that...)

          It is entirely about identity and culture with you all.

      2. DesigNate   11 months ago

        “That the Mises guys are more interested in opposing the left than anything else.”

        Probably because leftist pose more of an existential threat to liberty at the moment?

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   11 months ago

          I'm sorry, but shouldn't the central principle of the LIBERTARIAN party have something to do with LIBERTY, and not just 'opposing the left'?

          Besides, what the Mises Caucus guys are doing is more pernicious than that. It's not about stopping leftist policies per se, it's about stopping leftist IDENTITY. Look at how they threw a fit about Chase Oliver about his story of wearing a mask **VOLUNTARILY** during the pandemic. They don't oppose that because there was some coercion, or that they think that Oliver supports government mask mandates, but because he is identifying with a cultural practice that is now associated with the left.

          It is a purge of leftist 'wrongthink' that they are after. That is more than just saying no to left-wing ideas.

          1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   11 months ago

            Jeff. Can you be fucking honest for once and just admit you’re a brain dead pedophilic retarded leftist cunt?

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   11 months ago

              lol
              that was pathetic even by your standards

          2. DesigNate   11 months ago

            Leftism is diametrically opposed to liberty.

            You do realize that they lump individualism and libertarianism on the right, right?

        2. chemjeff radical individualist   11 months ago

          A while ago Breitbart said "Politics is downstream of culture." And I think the Mises Caucus guys saw that statement, and took it way too literally. They took that statement to mean something like, "If you drive a Subaru, or even if you just once got a ride from someone who drive a Subaru, that means you are secretly a BernieBro socialist progressive." And that is just not fair nor right.

  15. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   11 months ago

    Regardless of his views, he *can't get elected*.

  16. TJJ2000   11 months ago

    How's the welfare state going to be gotten rid of while importing a group that votes 70%+ for the welfare state?

    The rest sounds really good. I'd probably vote for him if there was ranked-choice voting and he was the only of 3. Which brings up another point. If you had 4-candidates; 2 in the lowest % wouldn't ranked choice turn the #1 loser voters into #1 voting winners. Only the biggest loser voters gets a double-vote correct?

    1. creech   11 months ago

      How? You get the much larger non-imported portion of the population to vote against the welfare state before it is too late. Which it certainly may already be.

      1. Gaear Grimsrud   11 months ago

        Chase explained it best when said we can walk and chew gum. In fact I think that pretty much describes his whole platform.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Can We End Racism by Ending the Idea of Race Itself?

Rachel Ferguson | From the June 2025 issue

The Supreme Court Said States Can't Discriminate in Alcohol Sales. They're Doing It Anyway.

C. Jarrett Dieterle | 5.24.2025 7:00 AM

Cocaine Hippos, Monkey Copyrights, and a Horse Named Justice: The Debate Over Animal Personhood

C.J. Ciaramella | From the June 2025 issue

Harvard's Best Protection Is To Get Off the Federal Teat

Autumn Billings | 5.23.2025 6:16 PM

Trump's Mass Cancellation of Student Visas Illustrates the Lawlessness of His Immigration Crackdown

Jacob Sullum | 5.23.2025 5:30 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!