Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
    • Reason TV
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • Free Media
    • The Reason Interview
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • Freed Up
    • The Soho Forum Debates
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Log In

Create new account

Politics

Government Shouldn't Be Important Enough To Fight Over

America’s political factions hate each other and torment each other when in power. Violence results.

J.D. Tuccille | 4.29.2026 7:00 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Police officers escort people off stage at the 2026 White House Correspondents' Association dinner. | Jason Dick/CQ Roll Call/Newscom
(Jason Dick/CQ Roll Call/Newscom)

Government shouldn't be important enough to motivate people to kill others to gain control. Moreover, people willing to engage in violence to seize the means of governance have no business exercising political power. These are points we should be drumming home after the latest in a series of assassination attempts against President Donald Trump and other administration officials at a time of surging political violence in the United States.

You are reading The Rattler from J.D. Tuccille and Reason. Get more of J.D.'s commentary on government overreach and threats to everyday liberty.

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

A Violent Mission Amidst a Rising Tide

Cole Tomas Allen's apparent attack at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner was almost unremarkable for the banality of his manifesto and because, thankfully, injuries were limited to a Secret Service agent whose vest stopped the round. Allen's grievances were the bog-standard political verbiage seen these days at political protests. He complained that he was "no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes," clarifying that he himself is "not the person raped in a detention camp. I'm not the fisherman executed without trial. I'm not a schoolkid blown up or a child starved or a teenage girl abused by the many criminals in this administration." He could have been at a "No Kings" demonstration—instead, he armed himself to attack attendees at a dinner. Unfortunately, while still a small minority, too many people are making similar choices.

Quantifying political violence and terrorist incidents depends on how incidents are categorized and counted. That said, there's no doubt that such violence is on the rise. The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) finds that "domestic attacks and plots against the U.S. government are at their highest levels since at least 1994," according to The Wall Street Journal. The University of Maryland's National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) believes that political violence peaked in 2020 and early 2021 but that it surged by 34.5 percent in the first eight months of 2025, relative to the same period a year earlier.

Young, Liberal, and Violent

Allen's relative youth, at 31, and left-of-center political views have become representative of contemporary political violence. While the assumption, for decades, was that violent attacks were more likely to originate on the extreme right, that has changed. "2025 marks the first time in more than 30 years that left-wing terrorist attacks outnumber those from the violent far right," CSIS's Daniel Byman and Riley McCabe noted last September after the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

Last year, crunching data from the American Political Perspectives Survey, the Skeptic Research Center reported that "around 1 in 3 younger adults (GenZ and Millennials) expressed support for political violence" and "support for political violence was highest among those identifying as politically 'very liberal.'" Zoomers voiced greater support than Millennials for political violence; Millennials were more violence-prone than Gen X; and Gen X was more violent than Boomers.

For each age cohort, liberals supported violence to a greater degree than did moderates or conservatives. For all generations combined, the greatest support for the statement "violence is often necessary to create social change" came from self-described "very liberal" respondents (44 percent), followed by "liberal" respondents (28 percent), "very conservative" respondents (27 percent), "moderate" respondents (22 percent), and "conservative" respondents (20 percent).

It's not surprising that younger people with less life experience and at the peak of physical strength are more violence-prone than those who are older and have done more and seen consequences play out. It also shouldn't be surprising that the pendulum swings over time and no political faction is inherently more violent than the competition. There's plenty of crazy to go around when people are out of power and feel besieged by and alienated from a hostile government.

Government vs. Anybody Out of Power

That's the lesson to take away from the rise in political violence. Modern politicians don't even pretend to represent people who aren't their fervent supporters. In Virginia, where congressional votes split 51.4 percent for Democrats in 2024 and 47.6 percent for Republicans, resulting in six seats held by Democrats and five by the GOP, voters just approved a measure overtly intended to gerrymander districts in favor of the donkey party. The new map could give Democrats 10 of the state's 11 seats.

The Virginia vote follows on a similar effort in Texas to favor Republicans.

After anti-administration "No Kings" rallies across the country last October of the sort attended by alleged would-be assassin Allen, Trump shared an AI-generated video of him shit-bombing protesters. He said of attendees, "they're not representative of this country."

His rivals are equally dismissive of opposition. In 2022, Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul directed Republicans to "just jump on a bus and head down to Florida where you belong….Because you don't represent our values. You are not New Yorkers." That was about the time then-President Joe Biden lectured the country that "MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution."

American politicians now treat government as a weapon to be used against opponents. Many members of the public perceive—correctly—that they're despised by those who wield the power of the state.

"Democrats and Republicans are increasingly likely to dislike each other and to feel hostile toward members of the other political party," YouGov's Eli McKown-Dawson wrote of results of the firm's polls.

Politicians and partisans have turned up the heat on American politics, and it's boiling over. Perhaps, inevitably, the more violence-prone among us take that as license to literally attack their opponents.

Violence Will Continue So Long as Government Is a Threat

The usual call, at this point, is for people to turn down the rhetoric. But that's pointless when Americans perceive that they're at risk from opponents who wield the vast power of government and plan to use it against them. That's not an irrational fear, and words aren't the danger here—the danger is government that reaches into all areas of life and which really is perilous in the hands of those motivated by malice.

"If in this country law has always been king, its empire has never been so expansive. More than ever, we turn to the law to address any problem we perceive. More than ever, we are inclined to use national authorities to dictate a single answer for the whole country," Supreme Court Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch and co-author Jane Nitze warned in a 2024 essay adapted by The Atlantic from their book Over Ruled: The Human Toll of Too Much Law.

At a time when Americans agree on so little—other than that they dislike each other—there are no "right" people to hold office and control the instruments of power. We've turned elections into existential threats to those who lose. We emphasized the "all" in "winner takes all," and we're paying the price.

Understandably fearful of government in the hands of enemies, Americans are literally fighting over political power. The violence won't stop, and will probably escalate, until there's no political danger worth fighting over.

The Rattler is a weekly newsletter from J.D. Tuccille. If you care about government overreach and tangible threats to everyday liberty, this is for you.

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

NEXT: Brickbat: Don't Take Your Guns to Town

J.D. Tuccille is a contributing editor at Reason.

PoliticsViolencePartisanshipGovernmentTrump AdministrationAssassinationBig GovernmentSecret service
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (58)

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. GOD OF PENGUIN ISLAND   2 months ago

    I appreciate the progress on BOAF SIDES!, however the increase in left wing violence is actually in service of bigger government.

  2. JesseAz (RIP CK)   2 months ago

    These articles tend to only come out when the left creates violence. Almost like trying to defend it.

    1. Mickey Rat   2 months ago

      The staff sees "no enemies to the Left". When the Left does something bad, it is a mistake or there is equivalency with the Right and a pox on both their houses.

      They are incredibly reluctant to call out the Left's ideologues as bad actors.

      1. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   2 months ago

        Plus, Tuccille has found his life's work being a TDS-addled steaming pile of lying shit and bragging about it.
        But gov't shouldn't be important! He's an hypocritical asswipe on top of it!
        Fuck off and die, Tuccille.

    2. Dan   2 months ago

      Keep in mind the conservative 20%? The majority of them can and have fired a weapon. In various situations. Just saying.

  3. Chuck P. (Now with less Sarc more snark)   2 months ago

    This article is particularly tone deaf considering the hundreds of billions in fraud that is coming to light. Democrats, Progressives, and Socialists, with their NGOs, welfare programs and massive subsidizing and encouragement of illegal immigration are bleeding us dry. They are an actual existential threat to the nation.

    We can survive trade wars, foreign wars and overzealous law enforcement. We can't survive continuing swings to the left.

  4. Idaho-Bob   2 months ago

    Trump shared an AI-generated video of him shit-bombing protesters. He said of attendees, "they're not representative of this country."

    Where's the lie?

    1. Minadin   2 months ago

      So, one side is actively trying to murder their opponents, and the other is creating AI-generated meme videos?

  5. Mickey Rat   2 months ago

    "...the danger is government that reaches into all areas of life and which really is perilous in the hands of those motivated by malice."

    And the side most prone to seeing political violence as acceptable, by what is in this article, is also the side wanting bigger, more intrusive government. I am not sure how you square that circle.

    The Texas redistricting was prompted by the fact that several of 2021 districts were considered racial gerrymanders. It is not very similar to what Virginia is trying to do at all.

    "July 7, 2025
    The U.S. Department of Justice sent a letter to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) suggesting that four of Texas' congressional districts were unconstitutional racial gerrymanders, writing, "As stated below, Congressional Districts TX-09, TX-18, TX-29 and TX-33 currently constitute unconstitutional 'coalition districts' and we urge the State of Texas to rectify these race-based considerations from these specific districts."[9]"

    1. MasterThief   2 months ago

      Pretty much every sentence is either a lie or partisan misrepresentation.
      An attempted assassin is merely a normal left of center guy whereas the proud boys and anyone on the right is automatically far right. He needs to investigate his own beliefs and understand that he is a radical leftist who supports other violent radicals. That is why the rhetoric sounds so normal. It is the bubble he surrounds himself with.

      1. Mickey Rat   2 months ago

        "It also shouldn't be surprising that the pendulum swings over time and no political faction is inherently more violent than the competition."

        "For each age cohort, liberals supported violence to a greater degree than did moderates or conservatives. For all generations combined, the greatest support for the statement "violence is often necessary to create social change" came from self-described "very liberal" respondents (44 percent), followed by "liberal" respondents (28 percent), "very conservative" respondents (27 percent), "moderate" respondents (22 percent), and "conservative" respondents (20 percent)."

        Maybe, I am less magnanimous than Tuccille, but the faction saying they find political violence acceptable is inherently more violent, by definition.

      2. Zeb   2 months ago

        On the other hand, maybe the rhetoric sounds abnormal to us because we avoid the left-wing spaces where such is pretty normal.

        1. Social Justice is neither   2 months ago

          Is that supposed to be a point or just stupid? TooSilly has spent years immersed in leftist echo chambers and cheering the radicalization at every step. Sorry but a meme is not literal bullets aimed with deadly, malevolent intent no matter what false equivalence the left makes.

          1. Zeb   2 months ago

            Seems pretty obvious to me. The fact that this shit has become normal in leftist circles is a pretty big condemnation of the left. "Normal" doesn't mean sensible or reasonable. When discussing assassinating a president becomes normal among a large portion of the population, you have a big problem. That may not be the point Tucille was trying to make, but it's still a point worth making.

      3. damikesc   2 months ago

        In their defense, pro-assassination IS a mainstream Democrat belief.

        I also love how when it turns out the evidence of the Proud Boys evil on 1/6 was fabricated, nobody on the Left cares. They are just mad that the PB beat up Antifa when needed.

  6. Quo Usque Tandem   2 months ago

    Conservatives in my experience generally don’t care what you do with your own life as long as you’re not breaking any laws or causing harm (and we can argue about abortion) but with liberals it’s always get with the program(s) or “get on the bus.” As for using violence toward that end, the first step has been to normalize it in language and they’re well onto the second by acting it out.

    Meanwhile just this morning the NYT published an interview and claimed that the actors, unlike the Weathermen and Black Panthers of the 60s are not organized and just lone wolves and concluded that “The number of incidents of political violence is small — a couple of dozen, maybe three dozen incidents over the four years ending in 2024.”

    And of course it’s all “boaf sides;” IOW, they’re covering

    1. IceTrey   2 months ago

      Conservatives want to ban abortion and drugs and prostitution. They're as authoritarian as the liberals.

      1. damikesc   2 months ago

        Hold on to that dream.

  7. IceTrey   2 months ago

    Prohibit government coercion then no one will have any power.

  8. MWAocdoc   2 months ago

    This does a good job of identifying the problem. Congratulations. Now tell us what we must do to get the government out of every aspect of our lives. I would be hard pressed to identify a single example from history of a people who were able to dramatically cut the power of an oppressive government without violent upheaval. Although lone wolf attacks do nothing to restore a nation of laws within a Constitutional framework, they may be seen as a symptom of the trend of increasing dissatisfaction by more and more of The People. One reason to oppose violent revolution even in increasingly desperate times is that NO ONE can foresee either the outcome or even identify the goal of the uprising. In this 250th Anniversary year of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, we know that the common goal was independence from a despotic and detached King. What no one could have foreseen back then was that George Washington would repudiate a new monarchy here; or that we would end up with a constitutional republic instead of chaos and reconquest by Great Britain.

    1. IceTrey   2 months ago

      Ratify a 28th amendment, "Government coercion is prohibited."

      1. MWAocdoc   2 months ago

        ROFLMGDAO!!

        1. IceTrey   2 months ago

          So you don't really want to get government out of our lives without violence.

          1. MWAocdoc   2 months ago

            Yes, I DO ... really! I was laughing at the idea that there might be a chance in Hell that a Constitutional Amendment could ever be passed that said anything like that. Plus ... please define "coercion."

            1. IceTrey   2 months ago

              The people just have to demand it. Initiating force or threats of force.

    2. mtrueman   2 months ago

      "I would be hard pressed to identify a single example from history of a people who were able to dramatically cut the power of an oppressive government without violent upheaval."

      Russia and Eastern Europe 1989. Thanks to leaders like Gorbachev and Jaruzelski deciding not to put down wide spread protests with force and seek compromise instead.

      Iran 1979. Thanks to national unity of middle class businessmen, leftists and the clergy. Police and military both sided with protestors.

      Egypt 2011. Massive occupation of central Cairo. Military sides with protestors.

      1. MWAocdoc   2 months ago

        Thank you. But are you trying to say that the people of Iran got rid of tyrannical government in 1979? I'm going to have to disagree with you there.

        1. mtrueman   2 months ago

          Iranians overthrew the Shah, a tyrant, in 1979. And the overthrowing was peaceful for the most part thanks to the repressive forces of the state siding with the public. Much like what happened in Russia, East Europe and Egypt. I'm sure you could add to the list after a day's reflection on the matter.

          If you are asking whether the Islamic Republic that replaced the Shah wasn't also a tyranny, then yes, it certainly had its share of problems and the protestors definitely had reasons to feel that they were betrayed. Two exceptions - religious conservatives were empowered, and Iran's middle class business people, the Bazaari, who benefited by the imposition of Sharia commercial laws.

          Egypt's military also betrayed the revolution and within a few years staged a coup and murdered thousands of protestors in the streets. Russia, too. In 1993 Yeltsin responded to public dissatisfaction with failing Liberal reforms by sending tanks to assault the Duma. In short, a peaceful overthrow of a despotic system doesn't mean that what follows will be all puppies and roses.

          1. MWAocdoc   2 months ago

            Well, then ... thank you for confirming my point: "that we would end up with a constitutional republic instead of chaos"

            1. mtrueman   2 months ago

              I wasn't trying to confirm your point, but show that tyrannies can be overthrown without violence and gave examples as you asked.

              As far as the desirability of the outcome of the revolution, I'm not sure. Maybe the chaos would have been preferable to a constitutional republic. Perhaps the history of North America would have been less violent had the French won the French/Indian War. Or the British successfully put down the revolution. It would have meant an earlier and less violent abolition of slavery and perhaps preventing the genocide and imperial conquest of native lands.

  9. damikesc   2 months ago

    "The Virginia vote follows on a similar effort in Texas to favor Republicans."

    ...and Texas followed a NY redistricting that benefitted Democrats in 2022. Or did you forget that?

    1. Mickey Rat   2 months ago

      The Left has the memory of a goldfish regarding their own history.

      1. damikesc   2 months ago

        Well, they might really not be happy with the SCOTUS decision handed down today.

      2. Minadin   2 months ago

        I've seen studies that strongly suggest that goldfish have better memories than Democrats.

  10. Agammamon   2 months ago

    >"Government shouldn't be important enough to motivate people to kill others to gain control. Moreover, people willing to engage in violence to seize the means of governance have no business exercising political power. These are points we should be drumming home after the latest in a series of assassination attempts against President Donald Trump and other administration officials at a time of surging political violence in the United States.

    Yeah, that's a nice idea. Too bad we live in this world which you helped create by constantly 'reluctantly, but strategically' voting for the people who insisted on centralizing all power so they can 'help' you 'better'.

    1. mtrueman   2 months ago

      These voters have in their possession some half a billion firearms not to mention ammo, too. As long as you continue to ignore this fact, and its implications, you'll be doomed to live in fear of the government, rather than vice versa.

    2. DrZ   2 months ago

      But voters in California keep voting against themselves. What could possibly go wrong?

  11. mtrueman   2 months ago

    Too powerful is not correct. The problem is that the constitution is designed to make effective governance of the nation difficult, if not impossible. Take the government's role in the abolition of slavery, probably its most consequential act in the nation's history. Both Russia and Brazil managed to do so in the same time period with minimal fuss. The stroke of a pen. In the US abolition was accomplished, and then only partially, accompanied by the most violent upheaval the nation has experienced with hundreds of thousands dead, more maimed, and cities burnt to the ground. The assassination of Lincoln, while tragic, was little more than a trivial footnote compared to the grand scale of failure to resolve a political issue.

    1. IceTrey   2 months ago

      Has there ever been a union of sovereign states with divided powers before?

      1. mtrueman   2 months ago

        Various federations, German Confederation, European Union, Hanseatic League, Iroquois Confederacy, Gulf Cooperative Council, USSR, etc. Just how united, how sovereign, what powers and how they are divided varies widely case by case, as I'm sure you must realize.

        1. See.More   2 months ago

          USSR

          Does not in the Venn diagram of "a union of sovereign states with divided powers before." It was strictly command and control, top-down from the Kremlin. The states were only nominally sovereign and the powers were absolutely concentrated.

          1. mtrueman   2 months ago

            "only nominally sovereign and the powers were absolutely concentrated."

            No, the reason why today we have states like Ukraine, Lithuania, Kazakhstan, and others, is because these 'socialist republics' were more than nominally sovereign. They all had recognized borders and controlled citizenship. Ethnicity and language education were down to these republics rather than the central state.

            I gave a list of examples to IceTrey's request.
            Various federations, German Confederation, European Union, Hanseatic League, Iroquois Confederacy, Gulf Cooperative Council, USSR, etc.

            I included USSR as probably the least sovereign of federated states, hence appearing last on my list. Apologies for not explicitly pointing this out, but I tried to make it clear that issues like sovereignty, unity and powers are vague and vary greatly.

  12. car-keynes   2 months ago

    So, because he did not kill enough members of his human family, there could be a very real shortage of people are not feeling need to absorb his manifesto and become thrilled to kill everyone else until someone else feels it?

  13. Juliana Frink   2 months ago

    24/7 media propaganda has made government the center of everything. For decades our choices have been increasingly narrowed. Then they blew it: they engineered Donald Trump's nomination in 2016, certain he would lose to HRC (the most corrupt woman in the history of the world).

    When that failed they went apoplectic, quite openly. So they attempted a coup, the likes of which we've never seen, and to depths we are still figuring out. They lost the narrative, and they haven't been able to control it ever since.

    The People who recognized the coup for what it is cannot unsee it. And the die-hard propagandists are working overtime to sow division and hate. The Machine now Rages against The People. In truth, control of the government in the near future government is unfortunately "important enough to fight over."

    Government should NOT be important enough to fight for. But for libertarians and those ostensibly "right" of center who simply wish to be left alone while the "left" ratchets up the violence, that sentiment is for the moment, irrelevant.

  14. mtrueman   2 months ago

    If by "too powerful" you mean that government assassination attempts tend to be successful, I have to agree. Trump has been directly responsible for several successful assassination attempts, as well as such atrocities as the massacre of some 160 school girls. All perpetrated with total immunity.

  15. TJJ2000   2 months ago

    One of the most predictable consequences of ignoring the US Constitution for a [Na]tional So[zi]alist Empire. As long as "Liberty & Justice for all" continues to be discarded for "The special [WE] Identify-as deserves ?free? entitlements" it'll only get worse.

  16. Thoritsu   2 months ago

    The ones with no guns, who want no one to have guns, are using the guns and violent. The other side, with all the guns is self-restrained.

    The hypocrisy is overwhelming and true basis of their interest is revealed. They are irresponsible, and assume everyone is irresponsible; therefore, we must turn over control to the government.

    The idea that this goes both ways is laughable.

    1. Juliana Frink   2 months ago

      Spot on!

    2. mtrueman   2 months ago

      "The ones with no guns,"

      There are half a billion guns in private hands in America. There is no demographic group that doesn't own guns. You can take comfort in believing otherwise, but, not to spoil the fun, do a simple search on the internet and you will find yourself proven wrong.

      1. jabbermule   2 months ago

        You're missing the point. The left has traditionally been against the 2nd Amendment, never missing an opportunity to scream for "gun control!" whenever there is a mass shooting. The right has traditionally shown unwavering support of the 2nd Amendment. Racial, ethnic, gender and religious demographics have little to do with the point being made.

        Leftists are now committing most of the gun violence in this country after spending decades opposing guns; that's the irony and hypocrisy.

        1. mtrueman   2 months ago

          " The left has traditionally been against the 2nd Amendment"

          That doesn't matter. Attitudes change, and as you point out Leftists are embracing gun violence, and the 2nd amendment is helping and protecting them. The controversies are trivial, in any case, revolving around types of guns or modifications, not guns per se. The owner who wants home protection or the deer/duck hunter aren't significantly affected. And Republicans also have a record favoring more restrictions on guns, Donald Trump, for one.

          "Leftists are now committing most of the gun violence in this country"

          I doubt that's true. Much of the gun violence is a family affair, one family member shooting another, not politically motivated. Or economically motivated, one gang asserting ownership of the territory of another, only very obliquely politically motivated. If most of the explicitly politically motivated gun violence is of the left, that's accidental, as the executive, congress and courts are all run by the party associated with the right. With a change of the guard, the left's domination in this area could vanish.

  17. minus the clever name   2 months ago

    Then you, J D, start talking about morality and patriotism
    Abortion and homosexuality and trans bs are why we are at each other.
    Lincoln had you in mind when he said : They don't want us to admit slavery is legal they want us to admit it is a social good.

    Gay marriage, homosexuals raising children, abortion up to birth, euthanasia..to you it 's "fine , to each his own -- hey what's for dinner?"

  18. Heresolong   2 months ago

    "2025 marks the first time in more than 30 years that left-wing terrorist attacks outnumber those from the violent far right,"

    Keep telling the lie and eventually people believe it. The only way you get this statistic is by labelling everything you can as "far right" and ignoring half the radical left's violence. For example, every "study" I've seen that reaches this conclusion completely ignores the BLM riots, death, and destruction. And why set the bar at 30 years? Presumably so that you can include Oklahoma City in the far right tally.

    1. mtrueman   2 months ago

      "completely ignores the BLM riots,"

      Riots are riots. They are not terrorist attacks. Leftist violence I'm aware of is directed to figures of state - police, politicians etc, or property like the arson that destroyed the warehouse recently, not a single person killed or injured, again, not terrorism. Terrorism, by definition, is the intentional killing of civilians to make a political point, the incident at Oklahoma City, which you seem anxious to ignore, is the perfect example. It was a bombing which killed dozens of innocents, not an arson which hurt no one, or a riot, or a shooting of a state officer.

  19. AJinNJ   2 months ago

    Can we please stop using the term "liberal" to refer to Democrats. There are NO liberals in the Democratic Party or the center-left (nor further to the left). They're all either Democratic Socialists, Socialist, or Social Democrats. See the Liberal Party or Centre Party in Sweden or the Liberal Democrats in the UK for real liberals.

    Note: I consider myself a "neo-classical liberal"; aka an actual liberal. Others that fall in the liberal banner are "classical liberals", "conservative liberals", and "liberal conservatives".

  20. minus the clever name   2 months ago

    I am not being contrarian but this , AGAIN, is exactly wrong

    It fails on morals, on facts, and on solution

    ON MORALS
    Summa Theologiae (II-II, Q. 101), patriotism is a moral virtue falling under piety (pietas), which is a component of justice. It involves a special duty of love, reverence, and gratitude towards one's country as the source of one's being and upbringing, second only to the duty owed to God and parents

    FACTS we don't disagree , fact is we act out of school-induced and government induced ignorance
    A 2018 survey by the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation found that only 36% of Americans could pass a multiple-choice version of the U.S. citizenship test, meaning roughly two-thirds (64%) would fail.

    SOLUTION As simple understanding shoud show , IT IS ONLY NATIONS that give rights, even historically
    Hannah Arendt’s analysis of statelessness, primarily in The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951), posits that in a world structured around nation-states, only individual states can effectively guarantee rights to anyone, including aliens

    DID THE UN DO ANYTHING TO PREVENT 800 000 Rwandans from being slaughtered visibly on the world stage ??????

    1. mtrueman   2 months ago

      "DID THE UN DO ANYTHING TO PREVENT 800 000 Rwandans from being slaughtered visibly on the world stage ??????"

      I came across this when commenting on one of Reason's arguments against government subsidizing stadium construction.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amahoro_Stadium

      Bottom line, China completes construction of Rwanda's largest football stadium in 1989. Cost of some $21,000,000, capacity 45,508.
      During the genocide it held 12,000 refugees protected by UN troops.

  21. vampire flames   2 months ago

    Violence is, of course, not limited to politics, church shooting, school shootings and church-schools shootings are now commonplace.
    Plainly, our society is on a downward glide. Too drunk with its own power and rotten at the center.

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

Brickbat: Wait Here

Charles Oliver | 6.29.2026 4:00 AM

Local Officials Vow To Shield the Public from Virginia's Authoritarian New Gun Laws

J.D. Tuccille | 6.29.2026 4:00 AM

The Gun That Won the Revolution

David Kopel | From the July 2026 issue

A Biohacker Gives Birth

Sarah Rose Siskind | 6.27.2026 7:30 AM

L.A. Delays Its $30 Hotel 'Olympic Wage' Until After the Olympics

C. Jarrett Dieterle | 6.27.2026 7:00 AM

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 Add Reason to Google

© 2026 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

I WANT FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS!

Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.

Make a donation today! No thanks
r

I WANT TO FUND FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS

Every dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.

Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interested
r

SUPPORT HONEST JOURNALISM

So much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.

I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK

Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.

My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
r

HELP KEEP MEDIA FREE & FEARLESS

Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

STAND FOR FREE MINDS

Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.

Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK AGAINST SOCIALIST IDEAS

Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BAD IDEAS WITH FACTS

Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BAD ECONOMIC IDEAS ARE EVERYWHERE. LET’S FIGHT BACK.

Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

JOIN THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM

Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BACK JOURNALISM THAT PUSHES BACK AGAINST SOCIALISM

Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BACK AGAINST BAD ECONOMICS.

Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks