Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Interview: Kennedy

The TV host and one-name celeb talks about cherry vodka, teenage rebellion, Frank Zappa, free-range parenting, and life as Fox's token libertarian.

When Kurt Loder and Penn Jillette tell you you're a libertarian, you might be a libertarian.

Once upon a time, Kennedy was one of America's most famous Republicans. At the tender age of 20, Lisa Kennedy Montgomery became a breakout personality at MTV, combining coverage of alternative music with political news starting in 1992. Frizzy-haired, bespectacled, and Doc Martens–clad, Kennedy quickly came out as a Republican, bringing ideological diversity to cable long before Fox News was a twinkle in founder Roger Ailes' eye.

She rubbed shoulders with plenty of musicians and politicians at MTV, as well as in her later gigs as a radio personality and a game show host. She also picked up a degree in philosophy from the University of California, Los Angeles, in those years, along with professional snowboarding husband Dave Lee and a couple of kids.

These days, Kennedy calls herself a libertarian, thanks in part to prompting from some famous friends, and she's still an odd duck. At a network famous for smiling glossy blondes, Kennedy brings a sharp brunette sensibility to Fox's talent pool. She first appeared on The Independents, the show she co-hosted with FreeThink's Kmele Foster and Reason's Matt Welch. It was cancelled in 2015, but quickly replaced with Kennedy, an eponymous solo show that hearkens more explicitly back to her V.J. days. It airs at 8 p.m. most weeknights on Fox Business, and approaches the news of the day with a wink and nudge, smuggling serious monologues about government spending, regulatory overreach, and political malfeasance in between segments driven by cat videos and memes.

After a taping of the show in June, Reason's Katherine Mangu-Ward chatted with Kennedy in her office, a small space crammed with serious books, absurd shoes, and brightly colored dresses high in the towers of 21st Century Fox* headquarters in Manhattan.

Reason: How did you become a libertarian?

Kennedy: I think I was born that way. Or at least born into a set of circumstances and family members that naturally steered me toward a path of individualism and limited government. The news was always on very loud in my house and you could only get news a couple hours of the day. Because of that, when we ate dinner, my dad would insist that the evening news be turned up at full volume and then he would shush us if we started talking during something very important. So I tried to listen to the terms which he found most interesting. They didn't make sense to me for a long, long time.

What were your parents' political leanings?

Both my parents were Democrats. My dad was definitely more of a fiscally conservative traditional Democrat. My mom was more of a feminist Camelot Democrat. They definitely had an idealistic view of life as it should be in the United States. And they had a sense that government had to have some hand in making people's lives better. So for me libertarianism was the ultimate form of rebellion.

"I think being deeply suspicious of government and communists is implicit in a lot of first-generation immigrants, particularly from Eastern Europe. My mom came over from Romania when she was a kid and they fled the commies who took their family hemp farm."

We both come from good Democratic families with Romanian roots. Do you think the Romanian experience of being dominated by assorted autocratic regimes over its entire history has something to do with your parents' politics or yours?

I definitely think my ancestry has something to do with my politics. And I think being deeply suspicious of government and communists is implicit in a lot of first-generation immigrants, particularly from Eastern Europe. My mom came over from Romania when she was a kid and they fled the commies who took their family hemp farm.

I'm sorry—a hemp farm?!

Yeah, and my grandmother always hated the female plant. She told me that she would never smoke it. And I tried to get her to enjoy some medical marijuana when she was in her later years and she had a few ailments. She refused because she said that the female plant is a drug. [Ed.—This is a common misconception, but hemp is not the male cannabis plant, it's just a different variety. For more on hemp, turn to page 38.]

And she's not wrong. She was a wise woman.

No. She wasn't super happy, though. Made everyone drink cherry vodka, but God forbid someone brings a reefer brownie into the house.

This is a common experience among immigrants—but not a universal experience. It's not as if everyone of Romanian or Russian extraction shows up in the United States and is like, "Woo! Thank God we can get on with the great libertarian project." There clearly are some other contributing factors to your politics. What comes next?

I was born in Indiana and raised in Oregon and there's a strong sense of individualism, particularly in Oregon. And my mom is an artist, so there was always a lot of emphasis placed on expression. She never raised us to distrust government as a tool for suppressing free expression, but obviously, as an expressor, you run into problems when trying to carry out your craft.

When I came home my freshman year of college, I had this very serious talk with my parents where I said: "I want to tell you guys something: I'm a libertarian." My mom cried. She said, "I bet you don't even believe in seat belt laws anymore." And I said, "I don't!" because I was a horrible 18-year-old and I was apparently determined to drive the knife in as deeply as I could. You became a very public, prominent non-liberal very early in your life. How did your family feel about that?

My mom was very disappointed when I came out as a Republican in high school. And being a Republican in high school was really fun because all of my teachers were extremely liberal. Expressing anything that was counter to their deeply held beliefs was so easily unsettling that that form of contrarianism was very comfortable. It wasn't comfortable for my mom. One time I lied to her and went to a Republican conference in Oregon. I told her I was staying at a friend's house. She worked for the phone company. And when I called her collect, she checked on Monday to see where the call came from, and the fact that it came from the beach where they were having the Dorchester conference meant that I was not spending the night at a friend's house. And she grounded me for spring break.

A lot of people become a libertarian because they read a book—The Road to Serfdom or The Fountainhead sends them on their way. Despite your glasses, I don't get the vibe that there's a single text that you would point to.

No. I had a set of strongly held beliefs, but didn't have the right name for it for a long time. And then having met and worked closely with [MTV anchor and future Reason columnist] Kurt Loder—he was the first one that told me I wasn't Republican; I was in fact a libertarian. I had heard the phrase but I didn't know what it meant. He gave me a copy of Ayn Rand's Objectivist Epistemology. Then I interviewed [magician and showman] Penn Jillette for our Halloween show at MTV and he expressed the same thing, that I was in fact a libertarian, and that it was OK to despise liberals, but there were things that were despicable about the Republican Party too. I also met Frank Zappa, and he was a left-of-center libertarian, but I appreciated what he had to say about free speech and I felt that his points of view were very well thought out and interesting. I had already been involved in the political process and had read a lot about politics, and in high school interned for my state representative and worked on a bunch of political campaigns and did Girls State and Girls Nation and youth legislature and student council. [So] from that point on, discovering that I was a libertarian was more about reading things and my own personal journey into confirmation bias.

Kennedy. Photo by Julian Dufort.Kennedy. Photo by Julian Dufort.Confirmation bias is the greatest drug. Second only to the female plant, maybe.

That's right.

When you think about what can actually change in our politics, in the near to mid-term future, what are you optimistic about? Not cultural stuff, broadly, but what could we fix that's busted right now with the correct application of libertarian elbow grease?

I'm really excited by people like [Michigan Rep.] Justin Amash and [Kentucky Rep.] Thomas Massie and even [Utah Sen.] Mike Lee in Congress. These limited-government constitutionalists who still have some sense of irreverence. And if that is the next phase of the Republican Party then I think the country will be better off. But what I'm most looking forward to is some of the [Food and Drug Administration] regulations being scaled back, particularly so people with terminal conditions have the opportunity to try some drugs and procedures and trials that they otherwise haven't been able to because the FDA is so incredibly oppressive.

Do you think House Speaker Paul Ryan is a cautionary tale about those guys? If you asked me a few years ago, "Is he going to be a force for good on the Hill?" I would have said yes. Then he got some power and his libertarianism wilted.

The thing that gives me hope is they don't see Paul Ryan as one of theirs, and they're very vocal in their opposition to that strain of "establishment Republicanism." When you are guided by the Constitution—and I've never considered Paul Ryan to be a strict constitutionalist—then you have a lot of people to answer to who take great joy in holding you accountable. Hopefully those guys, and ladies of course, will maintain that accountability and that authenticity.

What keeps you awake at night? Obviously you have a chance to talk about that on your Fox Business show every day, but the bad news of today doesn't necessarily reflect the kind of macro stuff that makes me either happy or unhappy about where we are in the world right now.

My thing is slow-burning statist mission creep and seeing all forms of government move at a glacial pace towards the full extinction of our rights and civil liberties.

When my youngest daughter was 6 months old, we went to dinner at a neighbor's house, and when we came back she was crying. She was with two good friends of ours who had a 5-month-old. One was a former cop and one was a former medic in the Army so we knew that the girls were well taken care of. But they had let her roll off the couch and she broke her clavicle. I didn't know that because they didn't tell me.

So I had to take her to the E.R. the next morning because she had been crying all night long. And the doctor looked at me with such disdain. He pinched her shoulder and realized that that's where her injury was and they X-rayed her and realized that it was broken. And the doctor told me that they were going to X-ray every bone in her body and if any other bones were broken they were going to call a social worker, and they were going to take her from us and that it would be at least a month before we got her back. Fortunately none of her other bones were broken, but I realized how quickly and how easily, even though I had done nothing wrong, the state would not allow me to establish my innocence to keep my child if something else had, God forbid, been wrong. This is a child who had only been breastfed up to that point. The thought of them taking her away from us was beyond comprehension.

They called a social worker down to meet with us and then we went home, and about an hour later, [the Los Angeles Police Department] showed up at our door and wanted to inspect our house to make sure that we weren't abusing our children. One of the worst feelings on Earth is being accused of something that you haven't done wrong. And that is such a common thing for parents nowadays. The inability to establish your innocence and the presumption of guilt, especially with parents, is so overwhelming and so terrifying and so pervasive, whether it's in the pediatrician's office or at school.

I think that's why free-range parenting resonates with me so much. Parenting styles for the last 15 to 20 years have really gravitated towards this hyper-controlling, authoritarian helicopter parenting which is doing such a great disservice, not only to families but to individualism as a whole in society. Some of the hardest things you can go through as a parent are interfacing with oppressive institutions, whether it's school or law enforcement or the medical community or cliquish parents.

"One of the worst feelings on Earth is being accused of something that you haven't done wrong. And that is such a common thing for parents nowadays."

I find people are very receptive to that message in theory, but there's always a but: "Sure, helicopter parenting is bad, but there are a lot of child molesters out there." How do you convert the general instinct that something is not right to addressing the macro question of whether the state is too big and too powerful?

I think it really helps to have examples, because you have to teach kids how to comport themselves. [When I got the show on Fox] we made a big transition, moving from the suburbs of Los Angeles to Manhattan. And our girls have to be able to walk from Point A to Point B and they have to know how to handle themselves and what to be aware of. That independence has been very beneficial for them, and all of their friends do the same thing.

That's why I think it is incumbent upon us to place so much importance on developing the individual and that independence. I see more of that in Los Angeles, where parents are terrified to let their kids walk anywhere. And then they go to college, where they expect that they're going to be insulated from any bad or scary thing. You just cannot live like that.

What do you make of the view that "the kids these days, they're a mess. They're never gonna be able to run the world"? What's your panic quotient about free speech and snowflake coddling on college campuses? Part of me thinks this is a major civilizational problem—we are reaping what we've sown and we're going to get screwed. And the other part of me is like, eh, people love to panic about the wayward youths.

People love to panic and I don't mind that, I just don't want to have to pay for it. If everyone starts defaulting on their student loans, I don't feel obligated to pay for that. I don't feel obligated to pay for someone being on their parents' insurance until they're 26 years old. In that sense, we have our priorities completely backward. But every other day there's a new story on a college campus where people have been appeased to the point where they have lost their minds. It's a normalization of that ultra-liberalism that destroys the concept of the individual and the notion of free speech and free thought. It's more sad than dangerous, because what good art comes out of that? If you're insulated from anything that you could react to, you become so hyper-reactive that it's actually boring.

Could you imagine Andy Kaufman getting through some sort of comedy set on a college campus? It's unbelievable when I think of some of the stuff that my brothers and I watched and listened to when we were kids.

Do you speak on college campuses, or would you be concerned about getting shouted down the way folks like Charles Murray and Milo Yiannopoulos have been?

I don't think there's anything that I could say that would be genuine that would create that much of a scene on a college campus. But if you are a conservative writer, the best way to make money now is to write something that is so incendiary that you're going to create that kind of reaction on a college campus. And then you try to go to the places that are soaked in kerosene and just toss a match. I think that's what Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos do—they're brilliant self-marketers, and they're just expanding their own brands by doing that. They do it under the cloak of First Amendment saviorhood, but in reality they're just selling stuff.

Your show has a little bit of a different flavor than the typical cable news hour. It's candy-colored. It's got a lot of pop culture references. You blow kisses at your viewers.

Well, they're very deserving of it.

Obviously it's a conscious decision. Why do you present yourself that way?

I grew up in a loud, very funny house where you had to compete to be heard. I worked at MTV, where the visual component and the aesthetic was very important and satisfying, because it was layered with music and meaning. Just as music was the common language at MTV, news is the common language here. But we consume it in a way that's much more comfortable, in a language that we understand. It's the kind of conversation that you have with your friends when you're having a great dinner. When you're out at a restaurant with different kinds of people and you challenge each other and you laugh, that's the ultimate vibe I want to create on the show, because those are some of the best nights and those are some of the best conversations. When you're talking about race and politics and freedom and government, but you're also talking about celebrities and parenting and things like that, having substantial conversations that make you laugh so hard you could pee your pants, that's the ultimate goal.

So what I'm hearing is pants wetting is going to be happening on an upcoming Kennedy episode?

Absolutely. Yeah, if we do it right.

When are you going to be replaced by a robot?

Sooner rather than later, sadly.

In fact, many of your colleagues have already been replaced by robots.

Yeah, the DobbsBot 4000 is a pretty convincing facsimile. But, you know, if you squirt water on him, he does short out.

Last question: When you're at a party with your kids' friends and somebody says, "What is a libertarian, anyway?" what do you say?

Someone who catalogs and stacks books.

This interview has been edited for length, clarity, and style.

*CORRECTION: The article originally referred to News Corporation. It is actually 21st Century Fox, which was spun off of News Corporation in 2013.

Photo Credit: Julian Dufort

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.

  • DajjaI||

    At the risk of being banned by reason - I like her but she became too much of a Trumpalogist. (I have not forgotten.)

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    I feel sorry for you and the conundrum you've placed yourself in. If you actually do get banned, you won't be able to say so, so you're more likely to just give up out of boredom at some point, which, being voluntary, makes it possible for some last-minute screed pretending you're about to be banned, and a ham like you will find it very hard to avoid that myth-busting temptation.

  • DajjaI||

    You feel sorry for me because... I will write a 'screed' making you feel sorry for me... hm ok I guess it's working.....

  • Huzzah||

    I think we'd feel sorry without the screed, honestly.

  • Huzzah||

    By the way, I clearly remember when you went full racist and that got you banned. That alone makes me feel sorry for you, being the legit 1950's Mississippi Sheriff that you claim to be.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Did he say something unkind about negroes?

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Yeah, what did he say? I missed this.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    "At the risk of being banned by reason "

    Is that like starting out every post with "I don't want to sound like a fag or nothin', but....."? Seriously though, what did you do that you are in danger of getting banned? I tell Tony to drink Drano at least twice a day, and I haven't heard a peep about that, so it must be serious.

  • DajjaI||

    I ridiculed Trump's border wall then blammo - everything went black. However I'd done this many times among many other anti-Trump comments so it's hard to say definitively. I would love to know! Also another commenter had just threatened to shoot me for using the term 'Der Drumpfenfuhrer' so maybe they were 'protecting' me from online threats and harassment though honestly it didn't make me feel any safer.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    They hate the border wall idea more than you do, so I promise it isn't that. The other thing, I didn't see it, so no idea.

  • Cloudbuster||

    [Ann Coulter and Milo] do it under the cloak of First Amendment saviorhood, but in reality they're just selling stuff.

    Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The free market is a wonderful thing.

  • Charles Easterly||

  • BullChipper||

    Kennedy and Stossel are the only two commentators worth listening to on Fox anymore. The rest are just republican hacks at best and trumptards at the worst.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    You don't like David Webb?

  • Dead inside||

    Kennedy is soooo hot, I just want to shove a potato up her ass.

  • Dead inside||

    Stossel's too!

  • GILMORE™||

    Reason: "Are you a doctrinaire, one-dimensional, open-borders advocate?"
    Kennedy: "uh i want to keep my job"
    Reason: "Then you are our enemy and must be rejected by all who subscribe to the true faith"

  • Huzzah||

    Can I just say something about that?

    It seems to be emblematic of a certain strain of Libertarianism, the one that wants what it wants and pretends there are no follow on consequences.

    I am not saying opening the borders is even a problem, but Europe is showing that there are indeed consequences, and "YOU'RE A FUCKING RACIST" doesn't do anything to address them.

  • GILMORE™||

    a certain strain of Libertarianism, the one that wants what it wants and pretends there are no follow on consequences.

    is that the same one that pretends to adhere to idealized libertarian principles like "freedom of association", but compromises them in a split-second if it becomes politically fashionable to do so? I vaguely recall coming across that somewhere.

  • chemjeff||

    Gilmore, you've finally convinced me. Let's close the borders right away. Keep those reprobates and riff-raff out. They aren't worthy of liberty. They don't belong here. Liberty should only be bestowed up on the worthy. Like us rich Westerners. Third world trash don't deserve it. They would just vote for socialism if they got the chance. Keep them out. Let them suffer in their own third world shitholes. That is all that they deserve. We should only let in good people in to this country. And by "we" I mean TOP MEN who know which ones are the good people and which ones are the bad people. I mean we don't want TOP MEN regulating our health care or our food or our drugs or anything else in our lives, but we absolutely do want the TOPPEST of TOP MEN regulating who should be in the country. And if there's something that we all can agree on as Americans, it's that men with guns should be sent to the border to stop the illegal immigrant invasion which is corrupting this country and turning it into a third world hellhole. It's not all of the native-born progressives who are voting for socialism in this country. Oh no. It's the Mexican day laborers who are the culprits. Kick them out!

  • GILMORE™||

    Gilmore, you've finally convinced me. Let's close the borders right away.

    You seem to be responding to something i never actually said. Oh, right, its Chemjeff, the strawman guy. Nice to see you jeff. let me know when you develop reading comprehension and a capacity for reason.

  • chemjeff||

    Fuck off Gilmore. Why don't you go back to fakelibertarians.com where you can talk about boob pics and how much The Left sucks all day.

  • GILMORE™||

    sorry, i'm not familiar with what you're referring to. I was responding to your idiotic not sequitur above.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Jeff, you're pretty far from a 'real' libertarian yourself. Aren't you basically just progtard lite?

  • chemjeff||

    Incidentally Gilmore.

    Which part of that tirade do you disagree with?

    Answer this question: We should close the borders, and put TOP MEN in charge of controlling who we let in the country, because....?

  • GILMORE™||

    Which part of that tirade do you disagree with?

    i don't agree or disagree with anything you said. I have no idea what you're frothing about and think its an incomprehensible, irrelevant mess

    I'm pro immigration. I think there are a variety of positions on how US border policy can handle immigration, both taking on more immigrants than we do, while reducing illegal immigration and maintaining border security.

    Contra you and others, i don't divide matters of policy into "What has been handed down as dogma by my ideological priests" and "NAZI TALK THAT IS FORBIDDEN".

    I think libertarians can have a variety views on border-control issues, which aren't at all synonymous with "Freedom of Movement". in fact i think an expanded guest worker program, combined with better border security, would actually bring in more actual 'labor', and reduce the external costs of illegal immigration and welfare-rent-seeking.

    If this is too many words/ideas for you to process, i apologize.

  • chemjeff||

    "I think libertarians can have a variety views on border-control issues"

    At some point a genuine libertarian position has to be grounded in, you know, actual liberty, for both citizens and foreigners. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the Trumpian Right approach to immigration, i.e., seal up the borders and kick out the dirty brown people, is not a libertarian-compatible position, no matter how many fakelibertarians.com denizens insist that it is.

    "which aren't at all synonymous with "Freedom of Movement""

    No, it's synonymous with Freedom of Association.

    If I have the right to kick out a gay couple out of my bakery, on the basis of freedom of association, and not have the state interfere in my decision, then I have the right to invite a Mexican - or anyone else - to work in my bakery, on the basis of freedom of association, and not have the state interfere in my decision.

    There just are some positions that are not well grounded in liberty, and cozying up to them is not the right thing to do.

  • GILMORE™||

    Strange, how you keep pretending i've advanced some argument about trump's policies.

    Look jeff, its always fun to watch you play with your strawmen, but i'm putting you back in the ban-hole now, because i don't think anyone really benefits from extended conversation w/ you.

  • chemjeff||

    In other words, I've actually hit the nail on the head - you want to pretend that there can be a "wide variety of positions" with respect to borders that are grounded in liberty, just because it would validate your own personal views if there were. You want to pretend that there can be some sort of accommodation between libertarian ideas on borders and the Trumpian anti-foreigner demagoguery. Because the alternative - accommodation with the "open borders" crowd on the Left - is just unthinkable!

  • GILMORE™||

    I've actually hit the nail on the head

    No, i just think my first explanation was clear and repeating things to you is is pointless. You want to debate a Trumpian straw man. You act as thought there's some spectrum of views here on immigration yet you're unable to provide a single example of that wider spectrum.

    And fwiw i don't think there's any need for anyone to accommodate open-borders arguments because there's no one in the actual realm of policy making those arguments. Even the far-left isn't saying we should abandon all border controls. Its purely an ideological fantasy used by libertarians + anarchists to preen in front of each other with.

  • GILMORE™||

    If I have the right to kick out a gay couple out of my bakery, on the basis of freedom of association, and not have the state interfere in my decision,

    So Gary Johnson is the alt-right now? I thought you just said libertarians shouldn't be cozying up to people who shun the very foundations of liberty?

  • chemjeff||

    I don't think Gary Johnson is the "alt right". I do think he was wrong on the bakery issue, and I declined to vote for him based on that reason. (I left the president item blank.) I do think Gary Johnson was a very poor ambassador for libertarian ideas and I would hope that the Libertarian Party picks someone much better in 2020.

  • GILMORE™||

    Yet you are perfectly fine with the magazine's cozying up w/ heretics on the exact issue you just claimed there can be no 'accommodating' difference of opinion about.

  • ||

    "...but the Trumpian Right approach to immigration, i.e., seal up the borders and kick out the dirty brown people,"

    Which is essentially the Democrat version under Clinton and Obama. Plus Obama deported more 'brown people' than any other President in history.

    But keep calling it 'Trumpian' or Trumptardian or whatever retarded play on words you select.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    That's a spurious analogy. This country isn't yours alone, like your personal property. You're sharing it with 300 million other roommates. So we do have to have a few house rules about visitors and house guests and such. Hopefully as few as necessary.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    To be clear, I was responding to Jeff's comments about choosing which guests he wants.

  • Sir Chips Alot||

    until we end the welfare state, yes, close the borders.

  • chemjeff||

    I think the single saddest thing from the 2016 campaign was the observation of how easily Americans fell for the oldest propaganda trick in the book, "Blame The Foreigners". You would think that a nation that was founded explicitly by immigrants and which took great pride in being a welcoming place for all people wouldn't so easliy wish to throw all of that under the bus. But alas here we are.

  • GILMORE™||

    "Blame The Foreigners"

    yes, the whole "Russia hacked the election" thing was stupid, jeff, but nothing to do with my comment above.

  • chemjeff||

    Did I say only one side was susceptible to scapegoating foreigners?

    As usual, as is the case of the fakelibertarians.com crew, The Left is the enemy and The Right's sins get rationalized away.

    But by all means, ignore Trump's shameless anti-foreigner demagoguery and continue bleating about how much The Left sucks

  • GILMORE™||

    Did I say only one side was susceptible to scapegoating foreigners?

    You made a general reference to "blaming foreigners". Was there some other example you had in mind? you need to learn to be more specific when you comment, jeff.

    ignore Trump's shameless anti-foreigner demagoguery

    Again, i have no idea what you're talking about, and why you think its relevant to my comment about Reason's selective-purity-tests w/ who they consider 'allies'.

    I know you probably didn't understand my comment, because you consistently seem to have trouble with the english language, so i'll help you and interpret it for you:

    - Reason magazine, in multiple articles recently (see: Zach, Sheldon) assert: "anyone who differs at all from a narrow conception of 100% open-border policy is not a real libertarian and is in fact a hateful alt-something which must be shunned and rejected"

    - Reason then does a glowing profile of kennedy, who, if she were asked a single question about whether or not she agrees with this one-dimensional vision, would either expose herself as one of the "bad ones", or be dumped by Fox, who thinks this kind of libertarianism is retarded.

    I wasn't, contra your idiotic retort, actually advancing any argument about what policy should/sholdn't be. I was just pointing out an obvious selective-demand for purity on the part of the editorial staff here.

    hope that helps, you poor illiterate fellow.

  • chemjeff||

    "- Reason magazine, in multiple articles recently (see: Zach, Sheldon) assert: "anyone who differs at all from a narrow conception of 100% open-border policy is not a real libertarian and is in fact a hateful alt-something which must be shunned and rejected""

    So in other words, Reason magazine has multiple authors with multiple different views on what constitutes a True Libertarian(tm), and some are more doctrinaire than others. You conflate this to a general consensus where none exists, just because you disagree with the authors. This is called a fallacy.

    "- Reason then does a glowing profile of kennedy, who, if she were asked a single question about whether or not she agrees with this one-dimensional vision, would either expose herself as one of the "bad ones", or be dumped by Fox, who thinks this kind of libertarianism is retarded."

    Pure and complete conjecture, dreamed up in your paranoid imagination. Guess what, this was a puff interview. You are the one demanding some sort of purity test if people get interviewed for Reason. "Why that Penn Jillette, that celebrity, why wasn't he asked questions about abortion and nuclear policy? Those traitors at Reason!"

    "I wasn't, contra your idiotic retort, actually advancing any argument about what policy should/sholdn't be."

    Yes you were, in your usual passive-aggressive way.

    "you consistently seem to have trouble with the english language"

    The "e" in English language should be capitalized, you dumb hick.

  • GILMORE™||

    Reason magazine has multiple authors with multiple different views on what constitutes a True Libertarian(tm)

    please point me at the article saying that border-policy isn't synonymous with "Freedom of Movement", and that actually maybe less-than-completely-open borders are a possible option for libertarians of different stripes.

    because i missed it.

  • chemjeff||

    Sure. It's right next to the article that says genuine libertarians can potentially adopt a wide variety of different positions for the Drug War other than simply ending it.

    Are you sure you want a libertarian approach to borders, or you just want one that validates your personal views?

  • GILMORE™||

    I see no link there to the article you're referring to.

  • chemjeff||

    "Why won't Reason validate my personal views and bless them with the label of 'libertarian'? Why oh why?"

  • Hank Phillips||

    Folks, if the poseur gave a damn it'd read the platform. And if a party member or contributor it'd know abt the non-aggression pledge.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    I really hate to wade into this squabble but freedom of movement is, in my view, a natural right. If I want to go to Mexico or Romania or Antarctica and I have the wherewithal to feed and shelter myself while adhering to NAP no man has the right to deny me that liberty. The same natural right is endowed upon Mexicans, Romanians and Antarticans who want to come here. The argument always boils down to, yeah but we got this welfare state and the constitution gives the federal government authority and we got this rule of law and yadda yadda yadda. But the argument is ass backwards. The fact that we have a fucked up welfare state doesn't give anyone the right to violate my natural rights and any law that seeks to do so is invalid on it's face. To argue otherwise is to argue that rights are not endowed by the creator but are granted by the state. There is no 3rd way.

  • GILMORE™||

    and I have the wherewithal to feed and shelter myself while adhering to NAP

    a range of loophole/qualifiers you could drive entire nation's foreign policy through

  • GILMORE™||

    "I wasn't, contra your idiotic retort, actually advancing any argument about what policy should/sholdn't be."


    Yes you were, in your usual passive-aggressive way.

    please explain what specific policy was being advanced by my above joke about Kennedy wanting to keep her job?

  • WoodChipperBob||

    You're absolutely right - the only way they can get liberty is if they come here and we give it to them. Because there's no possible way that they could get together and get it for themselves in their own countries.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    FFS you're an idiot. You invoke Gilmore, bitch about him, then whine and cry when he responds to you. WTF were you expecting?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Someone who catalogs and stacks books.

    Using the Dewey For-Yourself-imal System.

    How's come Reason edited out all the parts where Kennedy interrupted KMW?

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    As a former library worker, I would applaud your humor if not for the noise.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Shhhhhhhhh.

  • Charles Easterly||

    How's come Reason edited out all the parts where Kennedy interrupted KMW?

    I think that you might have introduced a salient point here, Fist.

    Katherine Mangu-Ward interviewing Lisa Kennedy Montgomery on a visual and audible medium might provide viewers with an additional perspective that the provided transcript fundamentally lacks.

  • GILMORE™||

    Alt-Kennedy

  • SIV||

    What's your panic quotient about free speech and snowflake coddling on college campuses? Part of me thinks this is a major civilizational problem—we are reaping what we've sown and we're going to get screwed.< ALT-RIGHT KM-W

    And the other part of me is like, eh, people love to panic about the wayward youths< COSMOTARIAN KM-W
  • Feminist Killjoy||

    At a network famous for smiling glossy blondes, Kennedy brings a sharp brunette sensibility

    Oh this old canard. :( But yet an interesting interview. I always like Radley Balko's "libertarianism happens to people" idea and I'd hate to meet a person who could have their kid threatened to be taken away for doing the right thing (taking the kid to a doctor, gasp!) who could walk away from that thinking the government is a kind and watchful parent substitute. And I think it's personal anecdotes like that sell libertarianism to statists.

    I'm in the age group that watched Kennedy on MTV, though I watched much more BET (FIGHT ME). And I like Kennedy, but I can't bring myself to watch any show like this at all. I like hearing other people's opinions in print, where I can do things like quickly look up and verify facts and also easily skip if the opinion isn't worth it.

    Now, give her a five minute segment on reason's youtube channel, and I'll pay attention. Just absorb the tv of my youth into your fold already!

  • IceTrey||

    You like hearing print? I think you might need a psychiatrist. As for her show DVR it an skip though. It's pretty good.

  • Microaggressor||

    I always like Radley Balko's "libertarianism happens to people"

    I like the one, usually applied to conservatism but I guess works for both, "mugged by reality".

    The kids nowadays might say "red pilled", but that means something different. I think all it means is realizing that the Neomarxist narrative of class oppression is bullshit, which can still lead people to different individual conclusions. But at the very least, a better respect for property rights once they realize that the current state of things is not necessarily an injustice.

  • SIV||

    Radley Balko's "libertarianism happens to people"

    Too bad it didn't take.

  • Microaggressor||

    Last question: When you're at a party with your kids' friends and somebody says, "What is a libertarian, anyway?" what do you say?

    An absolutist on the right to own property.
    What do I win?

  • IceTrey||

    She's not a token Gutfeld and Timpf are libertarians.

  • SIV||

    Gutfeld is a warmonger. Judge Napolitano is the closest thing Fox has to what I'd call "libertarian"

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Gutfeld is a conservatarian. How is he a warmonger?

  • SparktheRevolt||

    He's made a very sharp turn to authoritarianism and neocon foreign policy. He wants to do A LOT in the name of "anti-terrorism". I hope he just sold out and doesn't actually believe the crazy things he says (that are normal within the realm of Fox).

  • GILMORE™||

    I apologize to all other readers for wasting time w/ cj.

    A reminder: there is always this for making stupid things go away

  • Charles Easterly||

    I apologize to all other readers for wasting time w/ cj.

    There are many commentators on H&R (and elsewhere) whose comments I do not read.

    Likewise, you and CJ can ignore my comments.

    This is for the two of you (and anyone else who might find it useful).

  • Conchfritters||

    That sounds like Vivaldi's 4 seasons when on mescaline - I've been told.

  • Otis B. Driftwood||

    I embraced the philosophy of libertarianism in earnest about a decade ago after spending 2 years reading the responses from people like you to fallacious, partisan, and/or duplicitous arguments dropped by people like Tony and Shrike. If there weren't twats like them shitting on the Reason boards, it would just become another echo chamber. So don't apologize....never apologize.

  • Otis B. Driftwood||

    OT: With Kim's latest hydrogen bomb test, I'm convinced that war is inevitable. I understand the position that we don't have the moral authority to go around picking which countries get to have nukes and which countries don't, but given the incessant threats from this fat bitch, I'm sadly coming around to supporting military action.

    I have enormous respect for the opinions of this commentariat, and am asking if anyone can make a reasoned argument for avoiding military action in North Korea that guarantees U.S. security. Kinda hoping that someone can change my mind on this....

  • GILMORE™||

    am asking if anyone can make a reasoned argument for avoiding military action in North Korea that guarantees U.S. security.

    The only reason they have a nuke program, despite all their bluster, is to perpetuate the regime: not actually attack anyone.

    they don't have long-range missiles that can deliver the kinds of nukes they have, and even if they did, they don't have guidance systems for missiles that would allow them to hit anything accurately, and even if they did, we have subs and missiles defense systems which would make anything they launched destroyed en-route.

    the game they play is "look at me": get everyone's attention, so that the rest of the world leans on China to placate them/or shut them up. they're not really a threat, and even if they were, we should be encouraging Japan to arm themselves to deal with them rather than insert ourselves in a war in Asia.

    basically, i think the US should be ignoring Kim, and quietly arming japan. China can/should deal with the problem because they have the most to lose in many ways, and would gain a lot of regional prestige for truly taking the whole region's interests to heart rather than being the dicks they have lately (see: spratley islands, etc)

  • GILMORE™||

    they don't have long-range missiles that can deliver the kinds of nukes they have,

    for clarity what i meant by this: the big nukes they show off aren't the ones you can shoot for 1000s of miles. they have smaller payloads, but they're 1960s tech.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Today they are. They're getting noticeably closer to being a real threat. How long do way stay our hand?

  • GILMORE™||

    fair enough.

    the politics of NK are inextricably tied up w/ china.

    if NK ever gets realistically in a situation where they can threaten global war? china can/should/will step in.

    the US doesn't need to do dick.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    I would prefer to avoid that option as well. Assuming China steps up when they should.

  • IceTrey||

    They don't have to hit. You forgot about EMP.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    I'm not sure you're wrong (although if Kim has sufficiently distributed and redundant defenses for his arsenal, a decapitating strike is no longer even an option).

    But if you are wrong, it's because of two words:

    Jangmadang Generation

    The question is not whether the Kims will one day fall, but rather whether or not, when said fall inevitably comes, a rogue general vying for power might be stupid enough to fire off a nuke in a fight with rival generals, either within North Korean territory to secure his power base (not really our problem), or outside of it in a foolhardy attempt to frighten the West (worst-case scenario). I think this is unlikely enough that it is better to hold off and wait for the DPRK to collapse itself.

  • Conchfritters||

    Nuclear war? Fuck that noise. Are you fucking high? This dipshit will drop Seoul with an artillary barrage alone with the wink of an eye, forget the nukes. This is a problem even Dennis Rodman can't solve - does that mean anything to you??? Tell China to enact "regime change" and put someone in there who won't destroy my 401(k) and the world, parlaying with a guy who thought building a casino paradise in Atlantic City was a brilliant idea.

  • Hank Phillips||

    This is a good thing. I accessed the Fox website for news on the hurricane, and one of their Farrah Fawcett hairdo gals actually used the word libertarian with positive connotation. Libertarian was also used in the legalize-electricity Republican platform to describe victims martyred by the IRS alongside republicans. This may not sound like much, but I clearly recall when republicans spat the word the way German nationalsocialists spat "juden." After LP spoiler votes covered the gap in 13 states last election, the prohibitionists are less antagonistic.

  • IceTrey||

    Kat Timpf.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Would.

  • Sports Reporter Charles Manson||

    Reuters: Colorful local man defends Confederate statue

    ""It is a direct blow at my family, at my blood," Dixon said from the front porch of his 1930s farmhouse, where chickens wander in the yard and he crafts blacksmithing anvils from old train tracks. "I'm not going to watch that monument fall.""

  • Sports Reporter Charles Manson||

  • Elias Fakaname||

    They also have a Ralph Kramden statue.

  • mccati||

    I live in usa and life is worth living comfortably for me and my family now and really have never seen goodness shown to me this much in my life as I am a mother who struggles with three children and I have been going through a problem as seriously as my husband found a terrible accident last two weeks, and the doctors states that he needs to undergo a delicate surgery for him to be able to walk again and I could not pay the bills, then your surgery went to the bank to borrow and reject me saying that I have no credit card, from there i run to my father and he was not able to help, then when I was browsing through yahoo answers and i came across a loan lender MR TONY HARTON, offering loans at affordable interest rate and i have been hearing about so many scams on the internet but at this my desperate situation, I had no choice but to give it an attempt and surprisingly it was all like a dream, I got a loan of $ 50,000 and I paid for my husband surgery and thank God today is good and you can walk and is working and the burden is longer so much on me more and we can feed well and my family is happy today and i said to myself that I will mourn aloud in the world of the wonders of God to me through this lender GOD fearing MR TONY HARTON and I would advise anyone in genuine and serious need of loan to contact this God-fearing man on financialhome34@outlook.com through .. and I want you all to pray for this man for me
    Thanks

  • John Santello||

    Pertaining to Kennedy's comments on helicopter parents, I grew up in the '50's and '60's, in Mt. Vernon, NY, nobody's idea of paradise, and I can tell you I'm thankful every day for the freedom I had as a kid. My mother would shoo me out of the house on Saturday or during the summer, telling me she didn't want me hanging around the house. "I've got work to do and I don't want you in my hair all day. Go find something to do today". If the same thing happened in today's world, they would be investigated for neglect and abandonment.

    I took my first unsupervised by adults subway ride when I was 11, going to Yankee Stadium with my little buds. I worked as a caddy the following year so I could have my own money in my own pocket earned by me.

    While I'm not someone who thinks "these kids today..." I do think many have not learned to roll with at least a few of the punches that life will give them. While this may not be the worst thing, however I think what is missing is the opportunity for discovery and the opportunity to make and learn from mistakes.

    Thanks Mom, thanks Dad.

  • jonnysage||

    I used to watch the Independents but I dont watch Kennedy. Its 90% the same as every other show on FNC. Rehash of the same boring news stories all the channels are doing.

  • Nuwanda||

    I guess Kennedy will be drummed out of the club for supporting the Trump DACA policy of sending the problem to Congress.

  • simplybe||

    Kennedy is by far the most intelligent commentator on any network. She adds just sass and trash to make politics palatable.