Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Fight the Populist Right, the Progressive Left, and the Governments They Control

Democrats and Republicans reject individualism and free speech and both have become dangerous to our liberty.

Sachelle Babbar/ZUMA Press/NewscomSachelle Babbar/ZUMA Press/NewscomIn America 2018, the dominant political tribes despise all things that make America worth a damn. The populist right rejects individualism in favor of a raw cult of personality that demands unthinking loyalty to the Great Leader. The progressive left rejects debate in favor of repressing those who would dare offer opposing views. What's a decent person to do but spurn both political tribes and work to undermine the governments they dominate?

"My husband and I are watching closely to see who supports our president," wrote a voter whose comments were read aloud this week by the moderator of a debate among Michigan's Republican candidates for governor. "We will not vote for a candidate who does not."

"No need to worry," noted the Center for Michigan's Bridge magazine. "All four candidates support President Trump. Extravagantly."

And, in fact, the candidates competed to slip in as many mentions of the president and their connections to him as possible. "I don't know why, I love him," burbled physician Jim Hines.

Some candidates in other states—like failed West Virginia Senate hopeful Don Blankenship—seek to portray themselves less as Trump proxies than as his clones. Blankenship's opponents "want to say, 'Trump likes me the best,' where what we are trying to do is say, 'We are the most like Trump,' " Greg Thomas, Blankenship's campaign manager, told The Washington Post.

Republican primary races across the country feature similar scrambling for the support of voters whose allegiance is to Trumpismo rather than to policies or ideology. But it's hard to beat the devotions lavished on the president by his own cabinet. In one gathering, Vice President Mike Pence famously praised Trump once every 12 seconds for three minutes.

Of course, it's not like Democrats are unfamiliar with creepy cults of personality. In 2009, progressive celebrities gifted us all with an on-the-internet-forever demonstration of their willingness to drink then-President Barack Obama's Koolaid. "I pledge to be a servant to our president," they chanted in unison.

But these days the left has moved beyond embarrassing themselves with their own words to trying to choke off the utterances of others. In Seattle, socialist city council member Kshama Sawant and the union-backed organization Working Washington want online retail giant Amazon prosecuted for a felony.

Why? Because Amazon complained that a proposal to tax hours worked in the city would make the place an even lousier environment in which to do business than it already is. Specifically, Amazon paused a construction project and is considering subleasing office space it had planned to use—more than a hint that the company might pull entirely out of Seattle, where it's currently headquartered.

"Amazon's 'pause' was immediately and universally interpreted by politicians, journalists, and the public at large as a threat to inflict substantial harm on the business and financial conditions of the city," argues Working Washington. "It's a felony under state law to threaten substantial harm to the business or financial condition of any person, corporation or unincorporated association in an attempt to influence the vote or any other official action of a public servant."

"Working Washington's theory, of course, would criminalize a vast range of ordinary political action," comments law professor, First Amendment expert, and Reason contributor Eugene Volokh.

Targeting ordinary political action can also be seen in New York, where the Democratic governor is attempting to isolate and muzzle his political opponents—in particular, organizations that oppose his restrictive view of self-defense rights. Gov. Andrew Cuomo directed bank and insurance regulators "to urge insurers and bankers statewide to determine whether any relationship they may have with the NRA or similar organizations sends the wrong message to their clients and their communities who often look to them for guidance and support."

New York's Department of Financial Services promptly warned businesses under its jurisdiction that "their dealings with the NRA or similar gun promotion organizations" may incur "reputational risks" and that they should "take prompt actions to managing these risks."

That's an overt threat to banks and insurance companies that they'll suffer official wrath if they do business with legal organizations that disagree with high government officials about policy.

Between blind devotion to strongmen and hostility to free speech, Republicans and the populist right, on one hand, and Democrats and the progressive left, on the other, have done a fine job of embracing illiberalism. Increasingly, they show overt hostility to the individualism and individual liberty that have defined the country—imperfectly, for sure, but always aspirationally—since its founding. Forget debate and restraint, they seem to say; we'll just smash the opposition and follow the leader.

That liberal democracy is in trouble seems to be clear—or, at least, a clearly popular fear. The New York Times hardcover nonfiction bestseller list currently features Madeleine Albright's Fascism: A Warning as well as Jonah Goldberg's Suicide of the West. Other recent books on similar themes include How Democracies Die and The People vs. Democracy. (Personally, I think Hayek's The Road to Serfdom captured it all pretty well decades ago.)

But while those books sell well, the conduct of our rulers suggest that they're filling their bookshelves not out of concern, but to add to their collections of how-to manuals. The likes of Pence and Cuomo must be stroking their chins and muttering, "fascism and serfdom? Hmmm… Sounds intriguing."

Too many of their co-tribalists are right there with them. And these illiberal tribes have their hands on the levers of government in our country. The people in power aren't being forced toward the fate warned of in the recent flood of apocalyptic political tomes—they're dragging us there.

That means that not just the dominant political tribes, but the governments that they run, are deadly enemies to anybody who retains a taste for individual liberty not just personally, but for others too. If you want to be left alone and also to leave alone anybody else who would grant you the same consideration, if you care to think for yourself and speak your mind, there's nothing of value to be gained from listening to the populist right or the progressive left, or from refraining from actively opposing the governments under their control.

When the most powerful political tribes and their supporters have turned illiberal, the only way to preserve your liberty is to reject them and the system they control.

Photo Credit: Sachelle Babbar/ZUMA Press/Newscom

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.

  • buybuydandavis||

    " The populist right rejects individualism in favor of a raw cult of personality that demands unthinking loyalty to the Great Leader. "

    Reason just hates it when those who would preserve liberty in America politically organize.

    #MAGA

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Quick, now call Tucille a Cosmo.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Progressitarian

  • Cynical Asshole||

    I believe the proper term is "FAGGITTY CUCK"

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    If you are new to this thread, exit now. The whole thing is just Mary Stack arguing with lovecon89. Brain cells will die if you keep scrolling.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    White Indian was so much better than this garbage.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I seem to recall reading that the Brownshirts said the same thing.

    THANK GOD we can count on Trump to increase spending, cut taxes, AND pay off the entire federal debt in EIGHT YEARS!!! And how clever to keep the Deep State confused with $3.1 trillion new debt in his first year! LOVE HIM!.

    (Remember Jim Jones? When does the Kool-Aid start?)

  • buybuydandavis||

    No BOLD for me? I'm hurt!

  • Michael Hihn||

    Only in defense of aggression.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    And he considers dissent a form of aggression.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Aggression is an unprovoked personal attack. Your fucking lie is at the edge.

  • Michael Hihn||

    P.S.

    Aggression The action or an act of attacking without provocation

    ad hominem (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining

    Stalker A person who harasses or persecutes someone with unwanted and obsessive attention

    Verbal hostility, or in other words, verbal harassment or abuse is basically a negative defining statement told to or about you or withholding a response and pretending the abuse is not happening.

    Cyberbullying The act of bullying someone through electronic means (as by posting mean or threatening messages about the person online)

    psychopath
    1. A person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behaviour.
    2. The Authoritarian Left
    3. The Authoritarian Right

    Anything else?

  • Árboles de la Barranca||

    Appeal to authority?

  • Michael Hihn||

    1) A dictionary definition is NOT an appeal to authority.

    2) Appeal to authority is a fallacy in logic.

    3) The "authority" is a PERSON. Example: It's true because Joe Smith says so. That's not PROOF.

    A definition is PROOF of what a word means -- assuming a valid source, which I also proved (the links)

  • Finrod||

    Fuck off, slaver.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Get a life, punk

  • plusafdotcom||

    ad hominem (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining

  • Michael Hihn||

    ad hominem (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining

    Yeah, Finrod is a major asshole.

    My response was, of course, self-defense from an unprovoked assault!

  • ace_m82||

    Speaking of brownshirts, are you done defending the Nazis?

    www.reason.com/blog/2018/01/17.....nt_7100385

    "Don't like it? EMIGRATE."

    "See .. government DEFENDS rights."

    www.reason.com/blog/2018/02/21.....nt_7150853

    As the Nazis were elected in 1933, they didn't violate rights. Also, the Jews were free to leave!

    Me: Were the Jews in Germany in the 1940s free to leave?
    Hihn: ANOTHER MASSIVE FUCKUP!!! Of course they could,,.,.and many did. YOU THINK HITLER WANTED THEM TO STAY!!

    So, tell us again, Hihn, how those Jews in Auschwitz were "free to leave"? Those walls with the barbed wire and the guards with the machine guns, those were to prevent others from attacking those Jews, huh?

    Hihn legitimately thinks "rights" are subject to the will of the majority (or plurality). And, if this is anything like all the other times I've brought it up, Hihn will now come forward to defend the Nazis and their "rights" and "freedom"...

  • BYODB||

    I don't know who or what Hihn is, or if he's even a real person, but I know I want no part of whatever ethos he's pushing.

    I didn't think Libertarianism involved a complete rejection of natural rights, but he's proven over and over again that he doesn't understand the concept so I have to assume he isn't the 'real' Hihn. Alternatively, maybe I'm just a classical liberal instead of a libertarian but I don't really claim either so I guess that insulates me from purist arguments.

    The irony, to me, is that he supports Roe vs. Wade yet doesn't understand the notion of conflicting natural rights which is the underpinning of that whole case.

    Truly, it is baffling.

  • Michael Hihn||

    but he's proven over and over again that he doesn't understand the concept

    You're fucking insane -- as proven next..

    The irony, to me, is that he supports Roe vs. Wade yet doesn't understand the notion of conflicting natural rights which is the underpinning of that whole case.

    You are THAT stupid. The conflicting natural rights are the fetal child's Life and the woman's Liberty.... which YOU deny,

    And Roe V Wade has not been the law if the land for 26 years (smirk)

  • BYODB||

    You have verbatim said that there can be no conflict between natural rights before, so if you suddenly understand that concept now is proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that you're suffering from dementia.

  • Michael Hihn||

    PROVE IT, FUCKHEAD

  • ace_m82||

    So now we know that you've read my comment. Answer the above questions:

    So, tell us again, Hihn, how those Jews in Auschwitz were "free to leave"? Those walls with the barbed wire and the guards with the machine guns, those were to prevent others from attacking those Jews, huh?

  • Michael Hihn||

    So, tell us again, Hihn, how those Jews in Auschwitz were "free to leave"

    ONE MORE TIME, YOU LYING SACK OF SHIT - THOUSANDS OF THEM FLED GERMANY ... BEFORE AUSCHWITZ .... WHICH I SHALL AGAIN JAM UP YOUR SORRY ASS..

    ONE MORE TIME: the SHAME of FDR refusing Jewish escapees.

    ONE MORE TIME – the Smithsonian web site. FUCKHEAD
    Most notoriously, in June 1939, the German ocean liner St. Louis and its 937 passengers, almost all Jewish, were turned away from the port of Miami, forcing the ship to return to Europe; more than a quarter died in the Holocaust.

    DID THEY ESCAPE FROM AUSCHWITZ, SICK FUCK? BWAA HAAAA

    ONE MORE TIME …. Auschwitz did not open until the following year -- May, 1940.

    ONE MORE TIME …. They fled BEFORE Auschwitz …. Which destroys your ENTIRE bullshit narrative.

    *****GET THE PSYCHIATRIC HELP YOU NEED ....FOR WHICH THIS IS UNDENIABLE PROOF.

    Reject the anti-Christ which controls your very soul. Accept the TRUE Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior ... FALL ON YOUR KNEES TO BEG HIS FORGIVENESS

    MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON YOUR SOUL ... FOR YOUR LIES AND DENIAL OF THE JEWISH HOLOCAUST ... DRIVEN BY YOUR DEMONIC HATRED.

    (Posted in self-defense of truly PSYCHOPATHIC aggression by a stalker for over a year)
    (wretching)

  • Michael Hihn||

    MORE PROOF ace_m82 is bat-shit crazy PSYCHO

    Speaking of brownshirts, are you done defending the Nazis?
    http://www.reason.com/blog/201.....nt_7100385

    CLICK THE LINK (sneer)
    1) That's HIS comment, NOT mine.
    2) The word "nazi" never appears

    MORE BULLSHIT

    As the Nazis were elected in 1933, they didn't violate rights. Also, the Jews were free to leave!

    PROVEN
    1) They were still free to leave SIX years later.
    2) Auschwitz open SEVEN years later.

    MORE bullshit by FUCKHEAD

    So, tell us again, Hihn, how those Jews in Auschwitz were "free to leave"? Those walls with the barbed wire and the guards with the machine guns, those were to prevent others from attacking those Jews, huh?

    Already proven .. they were still escaping in 1939 .... SIX YEARS after your bullshit

    This proves when Auschwitz was opened, FUCKHEAD
    Heinrich Himmler, chief of the SS, the Nazi paramilitary corps, ordered the establishment of the first camp, the prison camp, on April 27, 1940

    PLEASE

    SEEK

    THE

    PSYCHIATRIC

    HELP

    THAT

    IS

    PROVEN

    HERE

    THAT

    YOU

    NEED

  • ace_m82||

    "That's HIS comment, NOT mine."

    Can you ctrl-f? I'm assuming people can. But, by all means, insult their intelligence.

    "The word "nazi" never appears"

    Shockingly enough, I quoted the bit that you said that applied. You defend ALL government that's elected, especially socialistic ones.

    "They were still free to leave SIX years later."

    Maybe but I asked if the Jews were free to leave in the 1940s! 1933 was a reference to when the election took place. But you don't care about truth, or communication, but about lies, and defending all elected government, especially socialistic (Nazi) ones.

    But I guess I should be honored that you call me crazy, Hihn, as you defend Nazis and can't comprehend things that go against your worldview.

    You might as well quit, Hihn, you just keep looking crazier. You can't win and you know that.

    God Bless you, Hihn!

  • ace_m82||

    "THOUSANDS OF THEM FLED GERMANY ... BEFORE AUSCHWITZ"

    Yes, but I asked if they were free to leave in the 1940s. And you claimed they were.

    What did I ask? "Were the Jews in Germany in the 1940s free to leave?" And you claimed they were. So you lied.

    "GET THE PSYCHIATRIC HELP YOU NEED"

    Hihn, you are terribly un-self aware, now aren't you?

    "Accept the TRUE Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior"

    See, Hihn defends Nazis, lies, then claims to speak for God. Keep going, Hihn, maybe if you look insane enough you'll go full circle and seem sane!

    But regardless of your evil/insanity, God Bess you, Hihn!

  • Michael Hihn||

    Want to see a FUCKING PHONY? Click ace_m82's links. He's a fucking psycho.

    Speaking of brownshirts, are you done defending the Nazis?
    http://www.reason.com/blog/201.....nt_7100385

    NOTHING THERE FUCKHEAD .... Links to HIM, ... you DON'T KNOW WHAT I SAID. **** NOT A SINGLE WORD ON NAZIS

    THE NEXT ONE IS CRAZIER

    "See .. government DEFENDS rights."
    http://www.reason.com/blog/201.....nt_7150853
    As the Nazis were elected in 1933, they didn't violate rights. Also, the Jews were free to leave!

    THAT SAME LIE - JAMMED UP HIS ASS ON THIS PAGE!!

    THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTE
    in June 1939, the German ocean liner St. Louis and its 937 passengers, almost all Jewish, were turned away from the port of Miami, forcing the ship to return to Europe; more than a quarter died in the Holocaust.

    FUCKHEAD
    "As the Nazis were elected in 1933, they didn't violate rights. Also, the Jews were free to leave!

    1939 - 1933 = SIX YEARS .LATER -- THEY WERE TILL FREE TO LEAVE.

    cont;d

  • Michael Hihn||

    Part two

    FUCKHEAD:
    , tell us again, Hihn, how those Jews in Auschwitz were "free to leave"? Those walls with the barbed wire and the guards with the machine guns, those were to prevent others from attacking those Jews, huh?

    AUSCHWITZ OPENED JUNE, 1940 ... 7 YEARS LATER
    AND THEY WERE STILL ABLE TO LEAVE ONE YEAR EARLIER
    ….. huh?.

    GET

    THE

    PSYCHIATRIC

    CARE

    YOU

    NEED

    … AS PROVEN HERE

  • ace_m82||

    "GET

    THE

    PSYCHIATRIC

    CARE

    YOU

    NEED"

    That's amazingly un-self aware, Hihn!

    See, he thinks the Jews were "free to leave" in the 1940s, because they should have known that the Nazis would try to kill them all.

    Note what I asked, "Were the Jews in Germany in the 1940s free to leave?" And what do you prove? That Auschwitz opened in 1940!

    Keep defending your beloved Nazis, Hihn!

  • ace_m82||

    Shockingly enough, Hihn, I quoted exactly what you said! I linked to what you said and quoted it! You defend all government that is elected and say it defends rights!

    And stop defending the Nazis, Hihn! You look ridiculous!

    "the German ocean liner St. Louis and its 937 passengers, almost all Jewish, were turned away from the port of Miami, forcing the ship to return to Europe"

    Yes, so the Nazis killed them instead. And you defend them.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    preserve liberty

    lol

  • tlapp||

    The interesting thing is that Trump is nominating judges who score very well on Libertarian issues. This will have a long lasting impact on the nation long after Trump is out of office. Since no Libertarian is close to winning the presidency we need to look for any thing that moves the needle in our direction.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Since no Libertarian is close to winning the presidency we need to look for any thing that moves the needle in our direction so long as it furthers Democrat or progressive goals

    Fixed that for you with the new Reason ideological policy.

  • DajjaI||

    Fight them? My strategy is just to sit 'n giggle as they cancel each other out.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    cancel each other out

    You wish. More like see-saw back and forth between the two with each side taking turns shitting on the concepts of individualism and liberty.

  • Ariki||

    "The populist right rejects individualism in favor of a raw cult of personality that demands unthinking loyalty to the Great Leader."

    This is the starting point for both sides it seems. The Hill-dogs and Burn-units attest to that.
    The suppression of dissent is a natural consequence of this. The only reason it looks like a product of the left is because pants suits are shit.

    It is much easier to let someone else do your thinking on difficult things, like freedom and personal responsibility.
    Mah brain cells are hot!

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    It's pretty amazing to think that the mainstream Republicans were never-Trumpers just a few years ago. Now they are falling all over themselves to out-Trump their opponents.

    It turns out that it's more about power for both sides than it is about anything else. These candidates (Mike Pence included) are only licking Trump's boots because they think it will further their careers. It's pretty disgusting really. The swamp keeps getting swampier.

  • John||

    It is because Trump is a successful President. They would turn on him in a heartbeat if he was not.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    This is why the left hates Trump so much. They know that some people are criticizing Trump for the bad things he does and praising him for the good things he is doing.

    Lefties rarely turn on their political deities. Even when they do, its to further the big-picture lefty agenda not because of some need to limit government misdeeds.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    They're both collectivist mobs. Freedom-loving people ought to reject both strains of collectivism, nationalist or socialist.

  • Fk_Censorship||

    All the examples of actual shenanigans in this articles pointed to Democrat activities, so we cannot morally equivalate the left, which does actual damage to fundamental freedoms, with the populist right, which is mostly talk when it comes to reducing freedoms.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    So we have actual liberty infringing actions versus, um, distasteful preference. Yeah, I can see the total equivalence.

    Join the anti-tribe tribe, it's the only tribe which totally isn't a tribe (but is better than the other tribes, which it isn't).

  • ThomasD||

    "So we have actual liberty infringing actions versus, um, distasteful preference."

    Yes. We have seen several of these infringing actions documented here on this site, and I have no doubt that those distasteful preferences also exist, but I sure would like to see them better documented. Other than the video of those schoolkids being compelled to sing hymns to Obama. Don't need to see that one again.

    Does the liberty that respects individualism also respect an individual's rejection of individualism? Or is that the only sort of tolerance that requires intolerance?

  • ThomasD||

    In 2009, progressive celebrities gifted us all with an on-the-internet-forever demonstration of their willingness to drink then-President Barack Obama's Koolaid. "I pledge to be a servant to our president," they chanted in unison.

    Given the growth of social media it really shouldn't be hard to find examples of people doing the same thing over Trump.

  • Iheartskeet||

    Heh, that captures it perfectly. I kind of amazing how Reason tries to paper over the left's truly deep and long term threat to liberty by telling us over and over that Trump is yucky. No sense of proportion.

  • BYODB||

    I noted the same thing in the article, in that they list actual terrible things Democrats have done and line that up with...Republicans supporting Trump?

    I find it curious they weren't able to list anything bad the Republicans have done, since I know there are heaps of things out there. This seems to imply that the worst thing Republicans can do is support a Republican President, but in fairness that might be the worst thing to the author.

    Personally I'd say that doesn't really move the needle.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Never changes.
    Left - Right = Zero

    If only libertarians had ANY policy solutions. For how much longer will voters be open to even radical change? While both parties have backed themselves into a corner, with no clue how to get out.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Left - Right = Zero"

    Is it catching on yet?

  • Nardz||

    Words - logic = Hihn

  • Michael Hihn||

    Do you have anything of substance, or just infantile stuff?

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Hihn = Think of a man, and then take away reason and accountability

  • gaoxiaen||

    Women, the majority minority.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Infantile.

  • Finrod||

    Yes you are, fucking slaver.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Is that why I CREAMED your sorry ass (sneer)

    HERE

    HERE

    HERE

    STOP STALKING ME, PUNK. Get a life

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Do you?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Top of the thread.
    Versus your NOTHING.

    Left - Rigjht = Zero

  • Michael Hihn||

    For over 40 years, among libertarians.
    This commentariat is mostly Authoritarian Right,

  • loveconstitution1789||

    What do you know? You're authoritarian left.

  • Michael Hihn||

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Full OP shit alright.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Anyone who clicks the link will see ABSOLUTE PROOF that you're a fucking liar about my political ideology

    Punk

  • Michael Hihn||

    (My tone and boldface in defense of aggression by a stalker and cyber-bully)

    PROOF loveconstitution1789 is a teat-sucking "entitlement" seeker ... while insulting his own father and stealing from everyone's children.

    loveconstitution1789|2.8.18 @ 3:08PM|#

    My retired father loves politics and we often discuss the nature of things.

    I cannot get him to openly discuss social security and medicare reform with cuts. He is just hoping to check out before our debt crushes the USA. Its selfish as shit.

    loveconstitution (sic) Insults HIS OWN FATHER, "selfish as shit" ... but DEFENDS his own sucking at the gummint teat! (OMG)

    HIS TROLLING claims that a multi-trillion debt increase is "giving my own money back " ... FROM WHERE TROLL?

    BY STEALING FROM HIS OWN CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN ... with MORE :crushing debt ... but HE is not selfish as shit!!! Trolling for goobers.

    What kind of fiscal conservative DENIES federal debt is stealing from our future ... his own children?
    A brainwashed Republican goober ... as DANGEROUS as ... a brainwashed Bernie goober

    HE WOULD CUT HIS FATHER'S BENEFITS .. AND STEAL FROM HIS OWN KIDS ... TO INCREASE HIS CASH, BECAUSE ... HE'S "ENTITLED."

    Progtards borrow trillions for free stuff
    Conservatards borrow trillions for free tax cuts.
    FUCK DEFICITS

    Left - Right = Zero

  • Mr Smeeth||

    Not unhnged at all.

  • Michael Hihn||

    (sneer) self-defense

    The unprovoked assault was intitiated here
    That makes YOU unhinged!

    Anything else.
  • Michael Hihn||

    (sneer) self-defense

    The unprovoked assault was intitiated here
    That makes YOU unhinged!

    Anything else.
  • Finrod||

    Go check yourself in at your local mental hospital, fucko.

  • Michael Hihn||

    ANOTHER Finrod fuckup!

    The unprovoked assault was intitated here
    That makes mine self-defense ,... and makes you a fucking fool. By definition

    This too is self-defense.from aggression. Yours, cyber-punk.
    Apologies if I somehow violated your safe space, REPLYING to someone else.

  • BYODB||

    If ever there was a person that could single-handedly drive anyone away from Libertarianism, it's Hihn.

    I imagine he takes that as a compliment, but it's really not.

  • Michael Hihn||

    SELF-DEFENSE PUNK .... NON AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE

  • BYODB||

    I don't think you get to claim self defense when you start all of the fights. Never has there been a more apt use of the term 'cry-bully'.

  • Nardz||

    Hihn is victim of his subpar intellectual capacity. Seeing him repeatedly embarrassed as he tries so hard is actually kind of pathetic.
    I pity the fool.

  • Michael Hihn||

    BYODB
    I don't think you get to claim self defense when you start all of the fights

    BWAA HAAA THAT IS AGGRESSION!
    AND THIS PROVES YOU FULL OF SHITl

    loveconstitution1789|5.15.18 @ 9:24AM|#
    What do you know? You're authoritarian left.
  • sarcasmic||

    If only libertarians had ANY policy solutions.

    Libertarians have lots of policy solutions. Most of which involve getting rid of government policy and letting the people handle it.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Payne, Jefferson, and Friedman approve.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Actually, they weren't that stupid -- Jefferson and Friedman.
    And Friedman's policies are rejected by the libertarians establishment ,,, mostly because he DEMOLISHED the gold standard with a simple question, "Do we want a stable money supply or stable prices?"

    Somewhat obviously, we cannot have both unless the Law of Supply and Demand is repealed ... which is why the gold standard FAILED to provide stable prices for most of the Industrial Revolution. Pisses off the Ron Paul cult, among others

  • ace_m82||

    "Do we want a stable money supply or stable prices?"

    Neither. "We" want monetary freedom, no governmental interference in the market for money.

    Your government worship is showing.

    (Also, Friedman was wrong on the question, no inflationary governmental printing ever results in stable prices.)

    www.mises.org/library/can-frie.....ze-economy
    www.mises.org/library/friedman.....depression

    "the gold standard FAILED to provide stable prices for most of the Industrial Revolution"

    Ever heard of fractional reserve banking? There's your problem!

  • Michael Hihn||

    WHO REPEALED THE LAW OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND?

  • ace_m82||

    No-one. You (they) used men-with-guns (government) to stop people from engaging in monetary competition.

    I also note that's your only objection. I guess all my other points stand.

    God Bless you, Hihn!

  • Michael Hihn||

    Supply and Demand DESTROYS every "point"

  • ace_m82||

    Yes, supply and demand could actually work without governmental interference. Literally everything government does is tries to stop supply and demand.

    We'd be much, much better off if we were to stop trying to fight supply and demand through cartel (government) actions. Initiating force (government) always leads to malinvestment.

    wiki.mises.org/wiki/Malinvestment

  • Michael Hihn||

    That's not a policy., it's a soundbite.
    Tell me how to convince voters to elect a congressional majority ... based on your slogan.

  • Mr Smeeth||

    That's not a policy either, it's logistics.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Your inexperience in electoral politics has crippled you.
    Or you too are ignorant of what policy is, along with logistics.

    Logistics are fucking useless without ,, we call it a platform of policy solutions
    Try and get elected without any. I've only been elected twice, managed a state Libertarian Party, worked on over 100 campaigns, and launched a winning tax revolt.

    I see you are stalking me. Will I see more of your shit downpage?

  • BigChiefWahoo||

    Libertarianism is good in theory, but in actual practice, you can't buy enough votes with Smaller Government to get elected. Say what you like about the authoritarians, Left and Right, but they're ladling out the government-paid-for goodies to their supporters, and that's what's putting/keeping them in office.

  • BYODB||

    It's a criticism of democracy that's older than practiced democracy, and nothing since it was conceived has shown it to be an inaccurate criticism.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Libertarianism is good in theory, but in actual practice, you can't buy enough votes with Smaller Government to get elected.

    That's how the ant-gummint goobers destroyed our movement.
    The pro-liberty faction NEVER targets smaller government.

    Pro-liberty is about PEOPLE. not government. Priorities matter, Increasing liberty ALWAYS limits or reduces government. Shrinking government CAN achieve the OPPOSITE of free-market outcomes -- like Medicaid

    The free-market outcome, pre-Medicare/Medicaid was universal treatment -- REGARDLESS of income or age People paid for it, willingly. Provided by thousands of charity hospitals, financed by millions of charities, foundations, etc. I'm an atheist, but I KNOW a religious hospital would NEVER turn anyone away. It would be a sin.

    Goobers, like Ron/Rand Paul, Cruz, etc., would just repeal it, if they could, which does NOTHING to restore free-market outcomes.

    Pro-liberties know private infrastructure must be rebuilt, which means a TRANSITIION, which will take time.
    The goobers say "Fuck that, GIT GUMMINT OUT," Assholes,

    My own plan is a CREDIT for donations to charitable healthcare. The money would transition as needed. And we'd get EXACTLY what people want

    The goobers are DANGEROUS. They leave Bernie as the only one CLAIMING to deliver what people want and are willing to pay for.

  • Azathoth!!||

    "Your" plan is what everyone on the right wants. Restore voluntary charity.

    The symbolic vote to repeal Obamacare and Medicare/Medicaid would be followed by that transition you seem to think you're the only one smart enough to realize would be needed.

    But you think that voting to get rid of a socialist program has no value. You are wrong. The morale boost that would give the liberty loving people in this country would be enormous.

  • I can't even||

    So some Republican candidates kissing Trump's butt means the party or its members "reject individualism and free speech and have become dangerous to our liberty"? Seriously, that's your proof?

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Tariffs. Now all of a sudden, everybody loves them.
    Protectionism. Now all of a sudden, everybody loves it.
    Anti-immigration hysteria. Now, all of a sudden, idiots and subnormals believe the country is being overrun by jebz takin' Mexican butt-rapists.

    Because Trump.

  • ThomasD||

    'Everybody' loves them?

    Everybody?

    Shouldn't be hard to prove that.

  • gormadoc||

    If they don't then it's infringing in their freedom. To keep up your Trump=freedom narrative you need need people to want them.

  • ThomasD||

    My narrative?

    What sort of magic decoder ring enable you to read that?

    Quotes please.

  • gaoxiaen||

    You're forgetting about smoking pot. The Libertarian Trifecta.

  • BYODB||

    Wait, wait, wait. Hold up a second. You think these things are new? Boy, that proves you haven't been paying attention since ever. Tariffs, protectionism, and immigrants have been central in American politics for something like 120 years, brotini. You can mostly thank FDR and Wilson, too.

  • damikesc||

    Tariffs. Now all of a sudden, everybody loves them.

    Who is EVERYBODY? Trump had one Cabinet member quit over it. Plenty on the Right are saying they are a bad idea. Others, like me, recognize it as a negotiation ploy and not anything that will ACTUALLY happen.

    Protectionism. Now all of a sudden, everybody loves it.

    See above.

    Anti-immigration hysteria. Now, all of a sudden, idiots and subnormals believe the country is being overrun by jebz takin' Mexican butt-rapists.

    No, just illegals exploiting our system. We have every right to tell them go fuck right off.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Tariffs. Now all of a sudden, everybody loves them.
    Protectionism. Now all of a sudden, everybody loves it.
    Anti-immigration hysteria. Now, all of a sudden, idiots and subnormals believe the country is being overrun by jebz takin' Mexican butt-rapists.

    Because Trump.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Oh, and squirrels.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    In fairness, I don't blame the anti-immigrant hysteria on Trump. In that sense Trump is just reflecting the Republican zeitgeist, not the cause of it. I do blame the rightwing media generally, for going out of their way to sensationalize and popularize stories that showed undocumented immigrants in the worst possible light. It is not possible to go to a place like Breitbart and Daily Caller and find articles that show undocumented immigrants as anything other than rapists, murderers, terrorists, welfare moochers, etc. Bannon himself admitted in an interview that it was a deliberate strategy on his part to direct Breitbart coverage in this way. And since you have Republicans who reflexively distrust the mainstream media, all they do is consume news from Breitbart, Fox, Daily Caller, etc.

  • ThomasD||

    I blame the welfare state. Can we agree that the welfare state is a gross imposition on individual liberty? I'd gladly support open borders absent the welfare state.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    If we had no welfare state, I would support far more lax borders but I would still want to try to check out those crossing the border for disease and Chavez/Maduro bumperstickers stuck to their shirts.

  • BYODB||

    ^ This. You can't have open borders and a welfare state, they are incompatible. Period. At least, I should say, in a free state they are. It works just fine in a caste society or a society with kept slaves. In fact, I'd say that's a feature of a caste society or a society with slaves.

  • damikesc||

    I thought Libertarians recognized the issue. Apparently, they do not. You can't do open borders and social welfare. And you cannot allow one and simply expect the other to go away.

  • Jerryskids||

    The main way you can tell a member of the cult is if he immediately leaps to defend Dear Leader from any criticism and slams the critic. The two main ways you can tell a member of the cult is if he immediately leaps to defend Dear Leader from any criticism, slams the critic and makes an absurd non-argument. The three main ways you can tell a member of the cult is if he immediately leaps to defend Dear Leader from any criticism, slams the critic, makes an absurd non-argument, and looks for any opportunity to take offense. Amongst the ways you can tell a member of the cult is if he immediately leaps to defend Dear Leader from any criticism, slams the critic, makes an absurd non-argument, looks for any opportunity to take offense and yet insists he's not a member of the cult.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Amongst the ways you can tell a member of the cult is if he immediately leaps to defend Dear Leader from any criticism, slams the critic, makes an absurd non-argument, looks for any opportunity to take offense and yet insists he's not a member of the cult.

    And nice red uniforms!

  • Michael Hihn||

    That includes both Trump and Ron Paul, just the most obvious, If you haven;t seen today's news. Trump sold us out to enrich himself. AGAIN.

    He had essentially shut down imports from the Chinese phone manufactures, ZTE.
    Then it was WTF time when he promised to reverse the same because China would lost too many jobs. CHINA JOBS?

    Now we know, The Chinese government invested a half-billion dollars in an Indonesian project that will PERSONALLY enrich Trump! National Review

    The Trump Administration corruption has now sailed past Nixon's and is on a par with Tammany Hall.
    He's not draining the swamp. He;s botltling it and selling it under the Trump brand!

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    *Trump says something awful*

    Reason Republicans: "But those are just words! You can't go by what he says! You have to look at what he does!"

    *Trump does something awful*

    Reason Republicans: "Sure that's maybe-kinda-sorta bad, but look at all the great things that he's done! Just think if Hillary had won!"

    *Trump does something not-completely-cringeworthy*

    Reason Republicans: "See! See! I told you so! Trump's way more libertarian than you think! All you Trump-haters can suck it!"

    Unsurprisingly, Trump never gets the full measure of condemnation that he deserves.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    *Trump says something*

    Lefties: OMG! TRUMP IS GOING TO KILL US ALL! NUKES BUTTONS! HILLARY SHOULD HAVE WON! POPULAR VOTE! RUSSIANS!

    *Trump does something good*

    Lefties: OMG! TRUMP IS GOING TO KILL US ALL! NUKES BUTTONS! HILLARY SHOULD HAVE WON! POPULAR VOTE! RUSSIANS!

    *Trump does something not-completely-cringeworthy*

    Lefties: OMG! TRUMP IS GOING TO KILL US ALL! NUKES BUTTONS! HILLARY SHOULD HAVE WON! POPULAR VOTE! RUSSIANS!

    Unsurprisingly, Trump never gets the full measure of praise that he deserves since he is a better president than Obama, Boooosh, Clinton, Bush, Carter, Ford, Nixon, LBJ, JFK, Truman, FDR, and Wilson

  • gormadoc||

    We've got two or three Democrats here; there's not much point in talking about them. The fawning behavior her over Trump is getting to be disturbing.

  • gormadoc||

    We've got two or three Democrats here; there's not much point in talking about them. The fawning behavior her over Trump is getting to be disturbing.

  • gormadoc||

    We've got an assload of squirrels, though.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Yesterday too. Clearly Reason is spending the majority of that donation money on website stability.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    assload of squirrels

    Nice band name.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    I think this exchange wraps it up pretty nicely and proves the point. Both tribes follow the same game plans when their person is in office or out of office.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Or you can re-read the comments and see that some of us Libertarians acknowledge a politician who is more Libertarian-ish than some LINOs.

    You can acknowledge the good things Trump does and criticize Trump for the bad things he does.

    Team left can NEVER acknowledge the good things Trump does and makes up more bad things than Trump actually does.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You can acknowledge the good things Trump does and criticize Trump for the bad things he does.

    Except, as it works out in practice from Trump's "libertarian" defenders, is that Trump is praised for the good things, but the bad things that he does are either excused away, or BUT HILLARY/BUT GORSUCH is thrown in our faces.

    I would love to see people like LC1789 or the other Trump worshippers around here to clearly and unequivocally, without referencing Hillary/Obama/"The Left"/etc., some of the genuinely awful things he has done. Like for example giving free rein to ICE to run around harassing even legal residents.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Enforcing immigration law and securing the border is NOT a bad thing.

    See, you already have in your mind what other people should consider bad about Trump and people like me disagree with you.

    IMO, Trump not pushing RINOs in Congress to gut the government is bad.
    IMO, Trump not ending the Dept of Ed is bad.
    IMO, Trump not exiting NATO is bad.
    Trump not gutting every federal agency by 50%+ is bad.
    Trump not pulling most troops from peacetime US military bases is bad.

    You were saying?

  • damikesc||

    Hell, not allowing a government shutdown. Call the bluff. It would be quite easy to actually make a shutdown nearly invisible to most people.

    Trump not demanding 10% cuts in every agency's budget every year is terrible.

    And Trump relying on the GOP to control legislative actions is asinine. They don't want to do anything. At least shame them with a proposal.

  • Libertymike||

    Why not focus upon the fact that, contrary to his campaign promise, Trump has filled the Potomac with some pretty sleazy, slimy swamp creatures.

    Who here has posted anything on the swampy move of the EPA to try and hide the fact that Pruitt's Vatican meeting last June included dinner with a cardinal now on trial for kiddie diddling?

    Let's not call Pruitt a hero or singularly able to roll back a handful of regulations. Sure, scrapping some CAFE regulations is good, but that does not immunize him from all of his swampy, sleazy behavior.

    Trump, himself, is making a fortune off of lobbyists, foreign delegations, and GOP parties doing business with Trump hotels. Let's not forget Trump taking rent from the Secret Service.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Once again, you are claiming Trump has sleazy, slimy swamp creatures working for him.

    1. Trump nominated these people. Congress confirmed them.
    2. The head of the EPA met a cardinal and that means he's sleazy? Bill Clinton flew multiple trips on the Lolita Express with Epstein. Numerous politicians met with various church leaders after the Catholic Church brushed off molestation claims like they were nothing.
    3. The Clintons charged secret service for "renting" their guest house to protect them.

    If you are going to try and claim something at least act like that all the behavior is bad including when Clintons do it.

  • damikesc||

    Who here has posted anything on the swampy move of the EPA to try and hide the fact that Pruitt's Vatican meeting last June included dinner with a cardinal now on trial for kiddie diddling?

    Not sure how that would be relevant one way or the other. I had no idea there was a kiddie molestation scandal in the Vatican and I wouldn't be stunned if Pruitt didn't either.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    How many people were hand-waving Trump's tarriff-war with Mexico and China away? How many people here were cheerleading his choice of John Bolton as National Security advisor? How many loved hi pick of Jeff Sessions as AG?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    This is a libertarian site, if libertarian means

    "Libertarians For Bigoted, Authoritarian Immigration Policies"

    "Libertarians For Government Micromanagement Of Abortion Facilities"

    "Libertarians For Abusive Policing"

    "Libertarians For Right-Wing Military Belligerence"

    "Libertarians For Torture"

    "Libertarians For Massive Military Spending"

    "Libertarians For The Drug War"

    "Libertarians For Government Gay-Bashing"

    "Libertarians For Race-Targeting Voter Suppression"

    Carry on, clingers. So far as your lousy educations, bigoted souls, and authoritarian gullibility can carry anyone, I guess.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Almost forgot

    "Libertarians For Tariffs And Protectionism"

    "Libertarians For Trump"

    "Libertarians For Pollution"

    "Libertarians For Government Bailouts Of Our Depleted Backwaters And Deplorables"

    "Libertarians For Pence"

  • Finrod||

    Fuck off, idiot slaver.

  • Colossal Douchebag||

    What about the people who don't post at Reason, but are also not you?

    Surely they are all evil and stupid too.

    Try to paint with a broader brush next time.

  • damikesc||

    How many people were hand-waving Trump's tarriff-war with Mexico and China away?

    China backed down. So not much of a "war"

    Mexico is a nothing-burger and a simple tax on remittances will devastate them.

    How many people here were cheerleading his choice of John Bolton as National Security advisor?

    Why should I be upset? We're out of a terrible deal with Iran and seem to working towards some likely-to-be-a-failure discussions with N. Korea. I am not seeing the bad in Bolton.

    How many loved hi pick of Jeff Sessions as AG?

    It was a fucking terrible pick. Still is.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Republican primary races across the country feature similar scrambling for the support of voters whose allegiance is to Trumpismo rather than to policies or ideology.

    To be fair, Trump has better policies and ideology than 99% of the current Republicans.

    If Congress followed Trump, ObamaCare would have been repealed, some of the federal budget would have been cut, and Congress would have reformed social security and Medicare.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    If Congress followed Trump, ObamaCare would have been repealed

    What exactly was Trump's plan for repealing ObamaCare again?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I had to wade through 2 pages of searches that listed lefty articles begging no ObamaCare repeal to find these:
    Trump campaign promise to repeal ObamaCare

    Trump budget proposal
    Only Congress can repeal ObamaCare and Trump has asked Congress to do that.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Link #1 is a campaign promise. A campaign promise is not a plan. Besides, I've been told over and over again that you can't trust what Trump says, you should only pay attention to what he does. What Trump says at some rally is completely irrelevant.

    Link #2 is to the *2019* budget, which proposes to repeal ObamaCare based on a drafted Senate bill. So this is Trump appropriating the idea from Congress.

    Once again, what is *Trump's* plan for repealing ObamaCare?

    Correct Answer: He never had a plan, all he had was slogans and blather.

    Kinda like his pledge to "make Mexico pay for the wall". He was never serious about that either.

  • gormadoc||

    You're talking to the dude who insisted for a month that Trump was never going to actually enact tariffs, it's just a negotiation tactic.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I never said that.

    I said I am against Trump enacting permanent tariffs because free trade is better.

    Trump is using threats of tariffs to nudge China to push North Korea into a resolution and to get China to discuss our current managed trade with them.

    More lies from gormadoc.

  • gormadoc||

    Are you a cheap Chinese knock-off of Hihn now?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I was just about to ask you the same thing gormadoc.

  • gormadoc||

    I really hope this doesn't become a thing.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Clearly you have become a thing.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Aw Chemjeff, Trump is now know for trying to fulfill and successfully complete his campaign promises.

    A campaign promise that has a plan is exactly a "plan". You cannot trust everything Trump tweets and says. Take that to the extreme and see how much farther you lefties get in election 2018. It really is your weakness that you are so gullible.

    Trump's plan is the same as Congress' plan..... ObamaCare is hereby repealed. Haha. You lefties try and make everything so difficult.

    You don't think Mexico is paying for the current construction of the wall and upgrades?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Trump's plan is the same as Congress' plan..... ObamaCare is hereby repealed. Haha. You lefties try and make everything so difficult.

    Republicans TOTALLY fucked up health care AGAIN ... but ..... YOU BLAME THE LEFTIES

    Was it lefties who rejected the original BIPARTISAN deal on Obamacare, which would have likely killed single-payer forever?

    Was it lefties who showed voters the GOP has NOTHING on health care ... after all those years of bullshit ... making Obamacare more popular than ever?

    Is it lefties who TOTALLY fucked up on Medicaid ... leaving Bernie and Elizabeth as the ONLY ones claiming to provide what voters have wanted for over 100 years ... and have ALWAYS been willing to pay for?

    It seems very comfy, deep inside the GOP partisan cave, but you need to get out into the light of day.

  • Finrod||

    You fucking idiot leftists own healthcare thanks to Obamacare, fuckwit.

  • Michael Hihn||

    (Boldface in defense to a BULLY -- a STUPID one

    You fucking idiot leftists own healthcare thanks to Obamacare, fuckwit

    Finrod ... a conservartard bully is stalking me down the page. THIS fuckup has him ASS-uming I'm a liberal ... on health care .... because I RIDICULED his tribe's MASSIVE fuckups in healthcare.

    How fucking STOOOPID is he? Well, I did say we could have eliminated single-payer forever.
    He's THAT fuicking stupid! with ABSOLUTE PROOF of his stupidity here,

    Includes policy positions for statewide office ... as the LIBERTARIAN candidate for ..... ready?

    STATE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER! Here's just one

    Deregulate. Open your Yellow Pages. Compare the number of health insurers with the number of auto and home insurers. Then ask yourself which insurance is the most highly regulated - but offers the fewest choices, with out-of-control prices. as you can see, over-regulation is hazardous to your health

    Yeah, I'm a fucking commie
    Anything else?

  • damikesc||

    Was it lefties who rejected the original BIPARTISAN deal on Obamacare

    A terrible deal dealing with a terrible policy shouldn't be applauded.

    Is it lefties who TOTALLY fucked up on Medicaid ... leaving Bernie and Elizabeth as the ONLY ones claiming to provide what voters have wanted for over 100 years ... and have ALWAYS been willing to pay for?

    You think people will pay higher taxes for terrible medical service.

    Yeah, we should take you seriously.

    BTW, nice to see a Libertarian like you applauding a Socialist.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Was it lefties who rejected the original BIPARTISAN deal on Obamacare, which would have likely killed single-payer forever?

    A terrible deal dealing with a terrible policy

    1) KILLING SINGLE-PAYER FOREVER IS TERRBLE!!!
    2) YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT THE DEAL WAS.!

    Is it lefties who TOTALLY fucked up on Medicaid ... leaving Bernie and Elizabeth as the ONLY ones claiming to provide what voters have wanted for over 100 years ... and have ALWAYS been willing to pay for?

    You think people will pay higher taxes for terrible medical service

    If that's their only opiton.

    Yeah, we should take you seriously.

    WHY DO YOU OPPOSE PRIVATIZATION?????
    WHY DO YOU OPPOSE ENDING SINGLE-PAYER FOREVER?
    WHY SHOULD WE TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY?

    BTW, nice to see a Libertarian like you applauding a Socialist.

    That'S EXACTLY why the GOP refused the deal to end single-payer forever ... because Obama would get credit. ... and you're just as crazy,

    1) WHAT was the "terribnle" deal the GOP rejected?

    2) Why do YOU reject PRIVATIZING Medicaid -- which REQUIRES a transition NOT repeal. (Infrastructure must be rebuilt.)

  • Cynical Asshole||

    He never had a plan, all he had was slogans and blather.

    It's almost like he's really just another typical politician.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    and Congress would have reformed social security and Medicare

    lol Trump has explicitly said that he isn't about to touch entitlement spending.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    lol. Even lefties are screaming about Trump proposed budget cuts to social security, medicare, and medicaid.
    Lefty Publication Think Progress

    You lefties really should know your enemy rather than repeating the same nonsensical narratives.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Okay I stand corrected. He has proposed very modest changes to Social Security and Medicare. NOTHING like any sort of full reform of the entitlement programs themselves, however.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I am glad to help.

    I never said FULL reform.

    I said reform. This proposed reform is big enough to cause the lefty propaganda machine to collectively shit themselves.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I never said FULL reform.

    But you LIE about his campaign. ... PROVEN at your own link! (duh)

    SAVE Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid ... NO CUTS IN BENEFITS
    TRUMP RAN LIKE THE DEMOCRAT HE WAS MOST OF HIS LIFE!

  • ThomasD||

    NOTHING like any sort of full reform of the entitlement programs themselves, however.

    Hope you didn't strain yourself shifting that goalpost.

    Would you support full privatization of all transfer programs?

    How about elimination of all welfare programs?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Oh good heavens. Tinkering with one small part of the Leviathan isn't exactly "reforming" in any meaningful sense.

    Would you support full privatization of all transfer programs?

    How about elimination of all welfare programs?

    Yes and yes.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    All or NOTHING!

    That always works great in this leviathan that is the US Gov.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Your own link PROVES Trump a fucking liar on Social Security and Medicare ... EXACTLY as chemjeff said.

    Let us know when he INCREASES spending, CUTS taxes and PAYS OFF. the entire federal debt in eight year I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

    Todays' news is MORE corruption ..... Why did Trump reverse himself on the Chines phone company ... because China 's government invested $500 million in an Indonesian development that will PERSONALLY ENRICH TRUMP. National Review

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: lovestate1917,

    To be fair, Trump has better policies and ideology than 99% of the current Republicans.


    That ain't sayin' much. And, you ain't saying much. The man has only bad ideas. Bad economics. Bad international policies. Bad immigration policies (based on bad economics... and prejudice against people from countries that denied him building casinos on those countries). Bad staff made of jealous twits who stab each other in the back.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    So going by the method of everything you say is wrong, I would then know that Trump has good ideas. Good economics. Good international policies. Good immigration policies. Good staff.

    Thanks. I was not sure Trump was that good but going opposite of your nonsense shows how good Trump is.

  • sarcasmic||

    I dunno. His tax cut have me a decent raise, and he's supposedly cutting back on regulation. There are two good things.

    Though you're are right in that anyone who supports his protectionist or immigration policies is an economicus ignoramicus.

  • Michael Hihn||

    So ... sarcasmic has an "entitlement" mentality ... he's ENTITLED to a tax cut ... stolen from all our children and grandchildren. This is different than Democrats stealing from our future .... how?

    Democrats borrow trillions for free stuff
    Republicans borrow trillions for free tax cuts
    And both SO self-righteous about more crushing debt.

    Left - Right = Zero

  • sarcasmic||

    So not taking is giving and not giving is taking?

    That's Tony-level derp.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I ridiculed BOTH left and right. (snort)

    Thanks for PROVING how STUPID you people are!!!

    You SERIOUSLY don't know that the tax cut STEALS $2 trillion from our children and grandchildren?.
    WHAT THE FUCK do you think the federal deficits and debt are?
    At least you're not INSANE enough to say "it's my own money."

    Progtards = conservtards
    Willing tools of the political elites.

  • BYODB||

    We are entitled to keep the fruits of our labor. That you call that an 'entitlement' is bizarre.

    The 'right' as you call it is interested in spending us into the poorhouse, but that isn't what you said.

    A tax cut is taking less from the people. That's good. The government spending more at the same time is bad. Yet you chose, of your own free will, to talk about the taxation side.

    Curious.

  • Michael Hihn||

    REPEAT: HOW MANY CONSERVATARDS SAY THAT STEALING MONEY FROM OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN IS ..... KEEPING THEIR OWN MONEY?

    HOW MANY ARE AS CRAZY AS LIBERALS ON FEDERAL DEBT AND DEFICITS?

    HOW STUPID IS THIS?

    A tax cut is taking less from the people.

    BULLSHIT, snowflake. It takes from some people and gives it to others ..... from your own children to you ... PLUS INTEREST

    Pay attention,
    1) The tax cut INCREASES the debt by $2 trillion. You never heard that????
    2) That means BORROWING $2 trilllion .... FROM WHO
    3) And who must be repaid?

    Left - Right = Zero

  • BYODB||

    Again, it's bizarre you talk about the tax side rather than spending. It's as if you're unaware those two things are different.

    BULLSHIT, snowflake. It takes from some people and gives it to others ..... from your own children to you ... PLUS INTEREST

    So...you're not actually talking about taxes at all. Just as I figured.

    You're actually talking about spending since, notably, it is impossible to levy a tax on someone that isn't born yet. However, spending money you don't have will be passed along to one's children in the form of debt.

    So, yeah, you either don't understand or you're just really terrible at making points. Maybe both.

  • Nardz||

    Hihn just isn't smart. Seeing him try to be is... sad

  • Michael Hihn||

    Nardz|
    Hihn just isn't smart. Seeing him try to be is... sad

    I'm forced to admit that Nardz is correct. NOW I can see what he knew all along.

    a) $2 trillion in more spending requires $2 trillion in more debt (assume no tax increase)
    b) $2 trillion in tax cuts requires NO new debt at all (assume no tax increase)

    Thanks! I can't believe I missed something so obvious.

    WAIT!

    We could repeal ALL taxes tomorrow ,... not cut a dime of spending ... and STILL not have to borrow a dime!

  • Michael Hihn||

    BULLSHIT, snowflake. It takes from some people and gives it to others ..... from your own children to you ... PLUS INTEREST

    So...you're not actually talking about taxes at all. Just as I figured.

    One more time

    Pay attention,
    1) The tax cut INCREASES the debt by $2 trillion. You never heard that????
    2) That means BORROWING $2 trilllion .... FROM WHO
    3) And who must be repaid?
    However, spending money you don't have will be passed along to one's children in the form of debt.

    WITH NO SPENDING CUTS, GOVERNMENT SPENDS THE MONEY IT DOESN'T HAVE...... PASSED ALONG TO OUR CHILDREN.

    Two separate examples
    $2 trillion spending increase
    $2 trillion tax cut only.

    Why do you say they don't BOTH require $2 trillion in new debt?

  • Michael Hihn||

    So ... sarcasmic has an "entitlement" mentality ... he's ENTITLED to a tax cut ... stolen from all our children and grandchildren. This is different than Democrats stealing from our future .... how?

    Democrats borrow trillions for free stuff
    Republicans borrow trillions for free tax cuts
    And both SO self-righteous about more crushing debt.

    Left - Right = Zero

  • Finrod||

    Your name should be Zero, since it describes your intelligence.

  • Michael Hihn||

    THIRD FUCKUP from Finrod, the goober who's now stalking me

    Thanks for PROVING ME RIGHT on how STUPID you people are!!!
    You SERIOUSLY don't know that the tax cut STEALS $2 trillion from our children and grandchildren?.
    WHAT THE FUCK do you think the federal deficits and debt are?
    At least you're not INSANE enough to say "it's my own money."

    Progtards = conservatards
    Willing tools of the political elites.

    (What will be his next fuckup?

  • BigChiefWahoo||

    Are you claiming that the government "owns" my income that any reduction in tax rate is "stealing" from future beneficiaries of government programs?

  • Michael Hihn||

    REPEAT:

    You SERIOUSLY don't know that the tax cut STEALS $2 trillion from our children and grandchildren?.

    WHAT THE FUCK do you think the federal deficits and debt are?

  • BYODB||

    REPEAT:

    Do you seriously not understand that it isn't the taxes that are the problem, but rather the spending?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Why does BYODB insist
    a) $2 Trillion in higher spending requires $2 trillion in new debt
    b) But a $2 trillion tax cut requires no new debt at all?

    I have no fucking clue how he thinks. Do you?

    Here's what I do know.
    He has an "entitlement mentality" -- just like a welfare queen.
    $2 trillion in new debt is okay ... but only if it lines HIS pockets.

    Democrats borrow trillions for free stuff -- as entitlements
    Republicans borrow trillions for free tax cuts -- as entitlements.
    That;'s why God invented libertarians.

    In the very late 60s, God spoke to David Nolan.
    "Dave, left and right are obsolete. They MUST be replaced. Or I'll have to get Noah and drown all the assholes again"

    Dad heard the Word of the Lord. And it was good

    Today, over 60% of Americans would self-identify as Nolan libertarians (fiscally conservative and socially liberal)

    And God was correct. Left and Right are obsolete. For all their screaming and fighting, they are now less than 40%. Combined.

    Now we need to kill the partisan primaries.
    America is being governed by a minority.
    And I don't mean race or ethnicity.

  • Azathoth!!||

    A two trillion tax cut means that the government has two trillion LESS to spend. A fact they should consider when creating budgets.

    It also means that American taxpayers have two trillion more in their pockets.

    That's a GOOD thing, Michael.

    It only becomes a bad thing if the government refuses to consider that it has 2 trillion less to spend. If they decide to spend it anyway--and, what the hell, while they're at it, spend even MORE.

    That's a BAD thing.

    But it's not a bad thing on the part of individuals like BYODB, or sarcasmic--or even YOU, Michael. It is never bad when someone takes less away from you.

    It's a bad thing on the part of government, who knowingly spend money they don't have.

    THEY are the entitled ones, Michael. THEY are the ones who feel entitled to your hard earned money, and sarcasmics, and BYODB's, and mine, and our children's, grand children's, and great great grandchildren all down through time.

  • Jerryskids||

    Lolwut? Trump campaigned on a promise not to touch SS and Medicare, increased spending on the military, infrastructure and a big, beautiful wall, and replacing Obamacare with some other government-managed system that worked. Further, he claimed that only he knew how to turn things around, make America great again. IOW, just like all statists he insisted that if we just had the right Top Men in charge government could be the answer to every prayer. Disagreements between statists over which men are the right Top Men and what policies they should pursue are merely minor quibbles over the details of collectivism.

  • ThomasD||

    All true, and (probably) all necessary to ensure his victory - how else was he going to get those crossover (D) votes in the midwest that he needed for his victory?

    Those people are not exactly the epitome of rugged individualism.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Look up thread. Trump actually did campaign to cut nearly every federal budget, including social security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

    Trump even campaigned on cuts to the military but that was after he got us out of Afghanistan, Iraq and some other military adventures thanks to Obama and Booosh.

  • ThomasD||

    "Trump actually did campaign to cut nearly every federal budget, including social security, Medicare, and Medicaid."

    Like all campaigns, he put out a lot of statements tailored to specific audiences, and not all of them were logically consistent or coherent policy. But he would also temper those specifics while giving stump speeches and much of it boiled down to the nebulous if ubiquitous "we'll do more with less" promise not an assertion that he was actually going to cut anyone particular person's bennies.

    Because, had people in the swing states had heard that message then we'd be discussing President Clinton's latest executive orders right about now.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Trump actually did campaign to cut nearly every federal budget, including social security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

    LIE Proof | More proof

    He REPEATEDLY said he'd save all three, with NO cuts. Fuck the Russians! The fraud was entirely his.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Hmm this article will no doubt inflame the "if only libertarians would be reasonable and suck up to the major parties" crowd.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    "if only libertarians would be reasonable and suck up to the major parties Republicans"

    there, FTFY

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    I guess those people claiming that we have to stop being so "extreme" in opposing gun control are telling us to suck up to Republicans.

    There is certainly an inside-the-beltway crowd telling us to "ally" with the GOP (a disastrous idea if you ask me). But don't try to pretend there aren't people trying to push us in the other direction as well.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Both those directions are on their death beds. Less than 40% of the voters, combined.

  • sarcasmic||

    I remember when Trump got the nomination. That was the last week I listened to talk radio. Until then the Trump cheerleading was bearable, but after that I couldn't understand what the hosts were saying anymore. With Trump's cock in their mouth their mumblings were unintelligible.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I'm surprised you made it that long.

    I turned off talk radio for good sometime after Obama got re-elected. That really got them all to be even more unhinged than they really are. I don't think they could ever come to terms that a "Nigerian Muslim traitor" like Obama could ever be *re-elected* by Americans.

  • gormadoc||

    I think Glenn Beck was fine for most of Obama's presidency. He was (and might still be) pretty libertarian.

  • ThomasD||

    Beck is a huckster.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Glenn Beck is NOT a libertarian.

  • JuanQPublic||

    I agree wholeheartedly.

  • sarcasmic||

    He has tried to be a libertarian, but he just doesn't trust people with that much liberty.

  • ThomasD||

    "... he just doesn't trust people..."

    Alcoholic. He doesn't trust himself either.

    He played at libertarianism early on in the Obama years, but his big 'rally' was a total bust because he realized he didn't actually mean a word of it.

  • sarcasmic||

    Alcoholic. He doesn't trust himself either.

    I don't think that has anything to do with anything. I know several alcoholics who are also libertarians.

    "Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort."

    ― Robert A. Heinlein

    Beck is an idealist.

  • ThomasD||

    "Beck is an idealist."

    Only to the extent that the ideal is 'whatever is best for Beck.'

    But, I should confess that I haven't heard him in at least three years, so maybe things have changed.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Libertarians are funny in that they can actually hear words, phrases, and context that does not fit into the Libertarian political position. Its how we can easily pick out the lefties on this website.

    Beck used a lot of words that expose that he is full of shit.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Hysterically, the righties like you are just as obvious ... and they don't know it either.
    Self-righteousness will do that.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Why do you listen to talk radio?

    That consists of lefties who know nothing and conservatives who know nothing.

  • sarcasmic||

    I don't. Not anymore. I did find it entertaining for a while. Now it's just Trump sycophants all day long. Barf.

  • ThomasD||

    It mainly consists of entertainers looking to grow their assets.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its also some serious virtue signalling to the left.

  • BYODB||

    I actually like listening to Mark Levin, although I've got to shut him off when he starts talking about foreign policy or police (which is shockingly often, I admit).

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Mark Levin has some good constitutional amendments for a Article V constitutional convention.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Start over from scratch. Like Jefferson wanted.
    Levin is a demigod to the wacky right and the alt-right

  • Hank Phillips||

    Ah, do I detect a bit of Milo-bashing?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Would you like some!

  • TGoodchild||

    Don't see how "right-wing populists," or republicans are rejecting free speech or liberty; will re-read article to check for compulsory equivocating.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    You might need to read it several times then.

  • gormadoc||

    Besides the dude who wants to take away media licenses, wants tougher libel laws, called for the firing of football players, and signed FOSTA? He just happens to be President.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    It was an attempt to paint the right as bad as the left. A common Reason staff tactic.

    The lefties are horrible for a host of reasons.

    The right is bad for its own reasons.

  • Michael Hihn||

    It was an attempt to paint the right as bad as the left. A common Reason staff tactic.

    The entire movement has been that way for 50 years/ Perhaps it's not that obvious to you outsiders.

    The lefties are horrible for a host of reasons.
    The right is bad for its own reasons.

    (lol) You don't even know what you just revealed. Again.
    So obvious, righties and lefties.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I think it's important to differentiate between the party leadership and the people.

    Average Republicans who believe in the Second Amendment generally do so for reasons that are just as committed to individual rights as average progressives are who support the First Amendment for . . .

    Well, average progressives may not believe in free speech or freedom of religion from a perspective of individual rights, but Republicans who believe in those things, again, seem to do so for reasons that closely approximate our arguments for individual rights.

    I'll admit, it's sometimes hard to get average Republicans to see that the public's support for literal interpretations of the First and Second Amendments is contingent on their own support for things like the Fifth and Eighth Amendment on issues like torture and police misconduct towards criminals, but if average Republicans only need to be persuaded that the individual rights they already believe in should be extended to include a wider range of things, then that puts them head and shoulders above average progressives--many of whom still need to be persuaded that our individual rights even exist.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You know, Ken, I used to believe that your typical Republican 2A supporter believed in gun rights out of some abstract commitment to individual liberty. But I don't anymore. I have seen too many of them saying things like "we have the 1st amendment because of the 2nd amendment!!", instead I think it is more like they believe power flows from the barrel of a gun - and as long as they have guns, they have some measure of power. That is about as unlibertarian of a justification for gun rights as I can think of. It also explains why they seemingly strangely do not support full enforcement of the rest of the Bill of Rights - it's not really so strange, because they DON'T have an commitment to an abstract principle of individual liberty. So it is no contradiction for them to support domestic surveillance programs (but only of the "bad guys", lol), while also supporting gun rights.

  • ThomasD||

    "That is about as unlibertarian of a justification for gun rights as I can think of. "

    ???

    An effective power of self defense - against other individuals or the state - is unlibertarian? It is the essence of individual liberty.

  • ThomasD||

    Do you really think gun rights people sit around talking about how great the Second Amendment is because of how it allows them to impose their will on others?

    You need to get out more.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Do you really think gun rights people sit around talking about how great the Second Amendment is because of how it allows them to impose their will on others?

    That is what they do. But they suffer sever denial. And FIERCELY attack anyone who argues AGAINST imposing their will on others.

    Gun rights is like abortion in that both their extremes are totally authoritarian. ,
    NO authoritarian admits to it. Look at Trump. He idolizes dictators and strongmen because he sees all of humanity through his own filters and values.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The belief that liberty arises only from weapons, and is not the inherent birthright of mankind.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Liberty arises because The People can protect that Liberty.

  • ThomasD||

    "The belief that liberty arises only from weapons"

    I've never encountered this attitude among anyone - pro guns or anti-guns - ever.

    It's called 'liberty's teeth' and nobody ever asks why it's not the First either.

    Because it is axiomatic you have to think yourself free before you can even consider trying to keep yourself free.

    Frankly, that mindset you describe is probably only to be found lurking under your bed.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    True Liberty to Chemjeff would mean that his entire political rationale for the Nanny-State needs to change. It would require admitting that his entire political belief system is bunk.

    You cannot have a Nanny-State and true Liberty.

  • Libertymike||

    Nor can you have an Empire and military installations all over the world and love of military and true Liberty.

    You can't have a Pentagon and true Liberty.

    You can't have soldier worship and true Liberty.

    You can't have sucking cop scrota and true Liberty.

    You can't have "national security interests" and true Liberty.

    You can't have a public sector and true Liberty.

    You can't have an income tax and true Liberty.

    You can't have judges paid by the state and true Liberty.

    You can't have laws restricting felons from owning firearms and true Liberty.

    You can't have a GOP and true Liberty.

    You can't have a Democrat party and true Liberty.

    You can't have a Ronald Reagan and true Liberty.

    You can't have a Michael Dukakis and true Liberty.

    You can't have a Bernie Sanders and true Liberty.

    You can't have special treatment for negroes and true Liberty.

  • Finrod||

    Wow, that's a shining example of No True Scotsman.

  • BYODB||

    Yeah, it would have been shorter to just say true liberty doesn't exist.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Since you clearly have no concept of what liberty IS, this list is as meaningless as your screen name.

  • damikesc||

    The UK is siccing police on people telling bad jokes and threatening police action against people criticizing a drug bust.

    Apparently, their inherent right has been damped a little bit.

    And, lo and behold, they are also gun-free.

    Why do you think dictators always disarm a populace first?

  • damikesc||

    The government wants power. They always want more power.

    The government needs to FEAR its citizens. Without that fear, oppression follows.

    Are guns necessary for rights? Sadly, I think that defending yourself with violence is the only way to secure rights long-term.

    Why do you think the two states with some of the strictest gun laws, NY and CA, are also starting the process of seeking penalties for "misgendering" people?

  • Fk_Censorship||

    Scandinavians are pretty well armed, yet their governments get away with the same type of authoritarian crap. I don't think it's a matter of being armed, the will of the population is probably more important.

  • Michael Hihn||

    It gets bat-shit crazy when they start snarling that 2A is an absolute right, which is blatantly authoritarian

  • sarcasmic||

    I think it is more like they believe power flows from the barrel of a gun - and as long as they have guns, they have some measure of power.

    I fail to see how that is untrue.

    it's not really so strange, because they DON'T have an commitment to an abstract principle of individual liberty.

    If they support the right things for the wrong reasons, they're still supporting the right things.

  • ThomasD||

    More and more I am seeing that the privileging intentions over acts is the mark of the leftist.

    It's not about what you do or don't do, it's what you mean by it.

  • sarcasmic||

    Leftists look at intentions and little else. They have good intentions, so they cannot be questioned. If their good intentions have terrible results, someone else must be to blame because they have good intentions. And if you disagree with them at all, you must have bad intentions which makes you a bad person.

  • Paulpemb||

    They have no good intentions. They are not misguided idealists. They know that socialism and communism lead to immeasurable suffering and the deaths of millions, and they don't care. Because they also know that it's a pretty sweet system if you happen to be the guy making the 5-year plan for how much wheat needs to be grown and not the guy out toiling in the field, and they expect that they will be the first one.

  • sarcasmic||

    They know that socialism and communism lead to immeasurable suffering and the deaths of millions, and they don't care.

    That's because it was done wrong by the wrong people! When the right people do it, people like Bernie Sanders, it will lead to peace and equality! Free shit for everyone!

  • Michael Hihn||

    They know that socialism and communism lead to immeasurable suffering and the deaths of millions, and they don't care.

    Typical tribal bigotry, aka bullshit.

    Very few of them want that at all. They just want to be sure nobody is left behind, and they gravitate to anyone who defend their values, which is only progressives .. and the now-almost-vanquished pro-liberty libertarians (as opposed to the anti-gummint goobers)

    Likewise, very few on the religious right support the Christian Taliban mentality of the Santorums, Huckabees, etc. But the Theocrats are the only ones defending their values. The War On Christianity is typical manipulative hysteria. But there is a bias ... CREATED by their leaders. 40 years as a libertarian activist, and Christian conservatives are always my strongest supporters, time and money. They know I'm an atheist, they always ask! But don't care. I let them SEE me as a Values Voter, which does NOT mean Christian values.

    The tribal divisions are manipulations, by leaderships..

  • Michael Hihn||

    Leftists look at intentions and little else. They have good intentions, so they cannot be questioned

    They are blind to it, for the same reason the right denies being the same way.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    BOTH intentions AND actions are important. For example, which is the better position in your view - "I don't support cannibalism because it's morally wrong to eat other people", or "I don't support cannibalism because people taste bad"? Neither one is a cannibal, but only one of the two has made a principled commitment against it.

  • ThomasD||

    As a libertarian it is not my position to judge why he doesn't eat people, only to note were he to do so that would be wrong.

    Your individualism is not especially, nor particularly radical as you might think.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Thank you Thomas. I was scrolling down to comment on judgmentalism.
    Have to met many? They invest a fair amount of efforts trying to see if your intentions are honorable ... which is not the cannibalism example. It's tribal. Often purely bigoted.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Cannibals don't eat people--they eat the meat left over when people leave.

    You can't eat people!

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I fail to see how that is untrue.

    It is true, to an extent. But that is where the analysis stops, and that's the problem in my view. Even the powerless are entitled to liberty. But I seriously question whether some of these more fervent Republican gun rights supporters really believe that.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You equate gun rights supporters with all being Republicans.

    Gun rights supporters tend to be very peaceful and even protect the Liberty of those powerless.

    You're welcome for protecting you.

  • BYODB||

    It's not 'true to an extent' it is absolutely true that power does indeed flow from the barrel of a gun, and your failure to recognize that fact means that you've been cloistered in the first world for too long (standing behind the worlds biggest guns in existence, I might add).

    Anyone that's been robbed at gunpoint knows this is true, as does anyone who's been arrested by the State. Might may not make right, but it does get you your way in the absence of an equal or greater application of might from the other party. RE: The Bundy Ranch vs. Branch Davidians.

    As an exercise, I would encourage you to argue the pros and cons of being robbed with the guy pointing a gun at your chest.

    To reject the notion that might underpins virtually all power is to be pretty naïve, in my view.

  • BYODB||

    And, I wanted to point out that this is the explicit reason why the United States populace was intended to be armed: to diffuse power outside the halls of the state.

    Your heart might be in the right place, but you have a lot to learn about life and humanity if you think 'rights' exist outside of their ability to be defended. A right that can't be defended is a right that doesn't really exist.

    The fact that natural rights, as theorized by their authors, flow from God means you'll need to ask yourself where they come from in an atheist society, and I think you won't like the answers to those questions.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Yeah, those crazy mutherfucking Founding Fathers and their fear of government tyranny.

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
    - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

    "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
    - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

    "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
    - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

  • Ken Shultz||

    "You know, Ken, I used to believe that your typical Republican 2A supporter believed in gun rights out of some abstract commitment to individual liberty. But I don't anymore."

    They may not articulate it in our favorite terms, but they believe that individuals have a right to defend themselves, that the government has a responsibility to protect that right as spelled out in the Second Amendment, and that the protection of that right shouldn't depend on the outcome of a popularity contest.

    They're reachable.

    This is far different from progressives who believe that the legitimate purpose of government is use its coercive power to force individuals to make sacrifices for the benefit of others in the name of the collective good.

    They haven't even made it to square one on any issue. If they land anywhere near us on any issue, it's mostly just a coincidence.

    I'm not saying that populist Republicans are libertarians in disguise. I'm saying that they live a whole lot closer to where we live.

  • Hank Phillips||

    East Germany?

  • Inigo Montoya||

    I don't necessarily see it that way. To me, the biggest problems with the left is that they either immediately abandon their principles to support a principal, or they take a good idea and run it reductio ad absurdum to the point where it becomes either a sad joke or an exercise in oppression.

    Case in point: I agree with the anti-war left who said that "fixing" the Middle East by bombing the hell out of brown people was wrong. But as soon as their guy got in and took over the brown-person-bombing, it was suddenly cool and laudable because the right principal was violating their principles.

    And for a reductio ad absudum example: I am in total agreement that it is very rude and uncivilized to pull your eyes into slits and talk with a stupid-sounding Hollywood Charlie Chan accent in order to ridicule Asians. But it doesn't follow that a white girl is not allowed to wear an Asian-style dress to her prom, or that a Spanish-American is not allowed to cook (or even eat) a stir fry. Way to make your point (and yourselves) laughing stocks, you idiots!

  • wreckinball||

    A whole lot closer is a good point. And this whole "both sides" had wringing that goes on here is generally false. Once rights get rolled back its hard to get them back. Violating the constitution gets replaced by "precedent?"
    I mean read the words the constitution is not complicated.

    Strict libertarian-ism is not popular enough a this point to be the majority. We need to pick the folks that are closest to that idea. Life is relative

  • Finrod||

    There's a Ronald Reagan quote about how the man that agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and ally, not a 20 percent traitor.

  • damikesc||

    I also think Ed Koch once said if you agree with him on 10 out of 12 issues, vote for him.

    If you agree with him on 12 out of 12 issues, you're likely insane.

  • Michael Hihn||

    The most vocal 2A activist are almost entirely the Authoritarian Right.
    The libertarian right has a better grasp if natural law and individual liberties, the classical liberal roots,.

  • FreeRadical||

    Well said Ken. And this is why I find myself gravitating to the "right" much more often than the "left", even though I think Trump is a gross and disgusting person.

    There's just precious little on the left that isn't a dark void of totalitarianism and brainless emoting.

  • ThomasD||

    ...the privileging of intentions over...

  • Cynical Asshole||

    The populist right rejects individualism in favor of a raw cult of personality that demands unthinking loyalty to the Great Leader. The progressive left rejects debate in favor of repressing those who would dare offer opposing views.

    To be fair, both sides do both of those things to one extent or another. But both sides suck, and both are enemies of individual liberty in their own ways. May they all end up in a woodchipper.

  • ThomasD||

    Team supporters support team winners.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    That was my first thought, too. You could just have well reversed the criticism of right and left and it would have been equally applicable. You think the populist right does NOT repress those among them who offer opposing views? I guess that's why an abomination of a law like FOSTA passed damn near unanimously.

    And to those that think the left does not demand unthinking loyalty to the Great Leader, I guess they were somewhere off-planet between 2008-2016.

  • Finrod||

    How many Democrats opposed FOSTA, again?

  • JuanQPublic||

    To be fair, both sides do both of those things to one extent or another. But both sides suck, and both are enemies of individual liberty in their own ways.

    Political rhetoric is often at odds with regard for the individual and individual liberty because it's about marketing a political package to as many as possible. The problem now is that the same political rhetoric is now encroaching into actual policy, where people's lives are directly affected, hence the elevated attacks on civil liberties during the last 30 years.

  • Thomas O.||

    "When the most powerful political tribes and their supporters have turned illiberal, the only way to preserve your liberty is to reject them and the system they control."

    The problem is, it's gonna take a LOT of people to get past the "butbutbut SPLIT THE VOTEZ!" mentality. It's already pretty much impossible to amend the Constitution so that political power isn't concentrated into two dominant tribes.

  • wreckinball||

    Oh I'm stunned!! another false equivalence "both sides do it" article from Reason. Is this site libertarian at all?

    Opening paragraph:
    "The populist right rejects individualism in favor of a raw cult of personality that demands unthinking loyalty to the Great Leader. The progressive left rejects debate in favor of repressing those who would dare offer opposing views."

    Ok I disagree that most Trump supporters are like cultists. Most voted for a guy who promised to lower taxes, reduced regulations, (i.e pro-economic growth) enforce border laws and strong national security.

    I definitely didn't agree with Trump on tariffs but he was up front with it on the campaign. That is not a cultist and basically I know a lot of Trump supporters. None are cultists. Hillary 100% sucked.

    I also don't agree with his style much of the time and some of his past playboy actions. So what I wasn't voting for him to be my parish priest and style points are meaningless.

    The progressive left attempts to use force (sometimes violence sometimes censorship) to silence their opposition. This is a little bit more serious than allegations that the other side is a cult. Even if such a cult exists, they aren't forcing you to join their cult. And cults aren't illegal.

    Wow, Reason you either need to drop the libertarian tag or come up with better stuff. You know actual libertarian stuff.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The left is now using equivalency arguments to shut up the conservatives. The left cannot admit how Trump is doing well and their schemes are not popular.

    The plan is paint both parties as bad and then the Democrats "will fix themselves to be better" and get elected. The left never gets better and more and more Americans are convinced of this.

    The left is horrible in almost every way socialism is horrible. Conservatives refuse to cut budgets and lay off the religious Nanny-State stuff.

  • JuanQPublic||

    Not sure "how Trump is doing well". Care to expand on how?

  • ThomasD||

    Net neutrality got shot down thanks to him.

    Not huge, but still, a thing.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tax reform.
    ObamaCare mandate repealed.
    Most Gov regulation cuts ever.
    Gorsuch.
    Has not started any new wars.
    Free 3 Americans from North Korea.
    DeVos.
    Cuts to EPA regs.
    Immigration law enforcement.
    Increased border security.

  • Nardz||

    +
    Withdrawal from TOP
    Withdrawal from Paris Agreement
    Withdrawal from Iran "deal"

  • Nardz||

    Damn you autocorrect!
    *TPP

  • Finrod||

    I saw a stat in late 2016 about how about a third of those who voted for Hillary did it to stop Trump, but about half of those who voted for Trump did it to stop Hillary.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    The populist right and the progressive left can both kiss my non-aligned ass.

    I've had it with people who "know better" and want to control others "for their own good."

    And to all those who keep voting for these morons because they don't want to "waste" their vote, one sure-fire way to waste your vote is to continue supporting these illiberal twits.

  • wreckinball||

    Well you can not vote. Or you can vote for the rather poor recent libertarian candidates (same effect as not voting) have been presented. Ron Paul made a reasonable attempt at the nomination. Russ Perot made a strong 3rd party move.

    The two would have to combine to make a difference. One big problem. Taking care of yourself, a basic libertarian premise, is not that popular unfortunately. A big roadblock

  • JuanQPublic||

    I've had it with people who "know better" and want to control others "for their own good."

    This is indeed a serious problem. When we distill many of today's problems down to a common core, it really does come down to people wanting to control other people, using government as a coercive instrument to do so. It steamrolls the ideas of self-government, due process, privacy, individual liberty, and separation of power.

    Reactionary politics are nothing new. But reactionary politics now have a stranglehold on actual policy.

  • ThomasD||

    I can tolerate a certain amount of crap from non-libertarian politicians. It's the ostensibly libertarian candidates who really let us down.

    When Johnson decided that gay wedding cakes required compulsion from those who would rather not be involved he lost any support I might have offered.

  • damikesc||

    I've had it with people who "know better" and want to control others "for their own good."

    Ditto here. Living my life is exhausting enough. I have zero desire to live yours also.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Tucille's reporting contrasts brilliantly with the nauseatingly craven bootlicking on other pages. What he sees is the same thing Ayn Rand saw the year she married Frank. Herbert Hoover united the Prohibition Party and Ku-Klux Klan into the serried ranks of Republican Ordered Liberty to prosecute dusky Jews and Eye-talians greedily cashing in on violations of God's Own Prohibition laws. Supporting them in principle but quibbling on policy were ignorant communists and stein-raising nationalsocialists. Only the Liberal Party, the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment and Pauline Sabin's Women's Organization for National Prohibition Reform opposed the Altrurian Armies of the Lord. Together they amounted to perhaps one percent of the population in 1930. But guess who lost the next five elections beginning in 1932?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "But guess who lost the next five elections beginning in 1932?"

    Americans?

  • JuanQPublic||

    Prohibition is a prime example of the pitfalls of using government as a coercive tool to control people. Many do not seem to realize that what the KKK and women's movements had in common was their shared disdain for legal alcohol, and wanted to use government as a bludgeon for their wishes to control others. They succeeded, until it was realized that regulating the private lives of Americans doesn't work, and actually creates new problems (organized crime, using alcohol as a pretext for oppression of certain populations, etc).

    Apparently, nearly a century later, the American populace hasn't gotten the memo.

  • JuanQPublic||

    Of course, it's not like Democrats are unfamiliar with creepy cults of personality. In 2009, progressive celebrities gifted us all with an on-the-internet-forever demonstration of their willingness to drink then-President Barack Obama's Koolaid. "I pledge to be a servant to our president," they chanted in unison.

    And this comparison has been virtually nonexistent.

    From the faux-left wing revolutionary "hope" posters with a silhouetted Obama to empty slogans, devotion to the man was evident. All this, while his own campaign website reflected nothing more than warmed-over center-left positions.

    Trump is essentially the Republican Obama. Trump is also the logical outcome of a dysfunctional political system.

    The supposed "rise of populism" in the U.S. didn't actually start with Trump and Bernie Sanders. It started around 2008 with the candidacy of Barack Obama.

  • Tony||

    What do you want from a president?

    Maybe we should just keep electing brown people and women. We don't seem to require any standards otherwise.

  • JuanQPublic||

    "Brown people" and "women" aren't "standards". They're immutable characteristics.

  • JuanQPublic||

    What do you want from a president?

    Essentially, a president who recognizes the federal government's primary role in defending the Constitutional rights of all, and respect for due process.

    But that's "boring", in contrast to promising magic beans to selected blocs of voters.

  • FreeRadical||

    Tony, what do you want from a president?

  • Tony||

    Not being a bloated insane farce would be a nice start.

  • Mark22||

    Ah, and there exactly is your problem.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    What do you want from a president?

    Less.

  • Echospinner||

    I like that.

    If it were up to me every president workday would consist of golf, state dinners, and holding hands with dictators.

    Once in a while they could make an inspiring speech.

    Today I had to do something for work. A new voice recognition program. So it had me read a speech from J F Kennedy. I think it was his inaugural speech. Doesn't matter it was beautiful bullshit.

    We got it. Just make us look good and do not screw us over.

  • Mark22||

    What do you want from a president?

    That he does his job within the constitutionally prescribed limits.

    So far, Trump has been doing pretty well, while Obama was one of the worst presidents in US history.

  • Finrod||

    On one right-of-center anti-Trump site I go to, people like to call Trump "Orange Obama". It really pisses off the Trumpbots.

  • Nardz||

    There are similarities. There are differences.
    IMO, the differences are more important than the similarities

  • ||

    Yeh but he's over turning Obama-era policies.

    So, so sweet.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    So the majority of people are idiots.

    Democracy relies on the wisdom of the majority.

    Our democratic process looks fucked--why are we surprised?

    More seriously, while Reasonites often refer to the wisdom of the Founders, I seldom see any discussion of the limited democratic participation those same Founders designed. Does ANYONE even consider that universal suffrage might not be the unmitigated blessing it was claimed to be?

  • JuanQPublic||

    Democracy relies on the wisdom of the majority.

    Which is why we don't have a direct democracy.

    The "wisdom" of the majority is often lacking, and the Constitution contains checks on both concentrated power and the "tyranny of the majority."

  • Nardz||

    Until legislators and judges free themselves for adherence to it.
    I agree with ES, and think there should be a test to vote. Very easy test:
    1) Who is the current office-holder?
    2) How long is the term?
    3) What branch of government is your vote elected to?
    Or, for (3)
    - how many articles in US Constitution?
    - how many branches defined by Constitution?
    - from where does the elected government derive it's powers? (2, maybe 3 answers to this one - the people, the Constitution, or even the monopoly on legitimate use of force - though no, 2 answers)
    - which nation did the US gain independence from?
    For presidential elections, the above 2 plus:
    - who was first president?
    - how many presidents have there been?
    Anybody who misses one of those questions should absolutely be denied the vote, as they clearly and demonstrably have neglected the responsibility that comes with rights.

  • Fk_Censorship||

    What about those who don't contribute to the common pot don't get to vote? Regardless of their erudition in civics.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Fascist

  • damikesc||

    No, Skeptic, I see the issues. No skin in the game makes dealing with taxing and spending nearly impossible. It's just that I do not trust the government to decide who should and who should not vote.

    Same as my disagreement with the death penalty. Some crimes warrant it --- but I don't trust the government to actually be competent enough to do the necessary work.

    I think the biggest thing that has fucked us over was Senate seats being popular vote elected now. That was a fucking terrible idea.

  • Mark22||

    No, Skeptic, I see the issues. No skin in the game makes dealing with taxing and spending nearly impossible. It's just that I do not trust the government to decide who should and who should not vote.

    This isn't a practical problem provided taxes stay low.

  • Mark22||

    Democracy relies on the wisdom of the majority.

    There are many forms of "democracy" (=self-rule by the people). Majoritarianism and democratic socialism relies on the wisdom of the majority. That's why they are bad ideas and why the US wasn't intended to have those forms of government.

    Does ANYONE even consider that universal suffrage might not be the unmitigated blessing it was claimed to be?

    Universal suffrage is acceptable provided government remains limited; most people simply don't care enough to vote on a 5%-of-GDP federal budget.

    However, the Greeks probably had it right: representative democracy leads to plutocracy, and if you're going to have some form of Western-style democracy, sortition might be a better choice.

  • vek||

    Universal suffrage is a horrible idea. Because once you have it you never WILL have limited government. On paper most of the FedGov is pretty obviously illegal. Didn't stop it from happening though!

    Other than going back to only white, male, landowners voting... Which is obviously a non starter nowadays (even though they're the only group that actually holds correct views statistically on government), I would propose some sort of exam system. You must be able to pass a history test and civics test that shows you actually have a solid amount of knowledge of how shit works. An IQ test wouldn't hurt either...

    If we only allowed intelligent and educated people to vote, no matter their race, sex, or level of income, we would have a VASTLY better run system. If you don't know what year the USA declared independence from the British you auto fail! If you don't know the 3 branches of government... Auto fail! There are people so stupid and uninformed that they don't know that stuff, yet they get to vote to raise taxes or take away other peoples rights. The founders were smart to put intentional limits on less bright people being able to vote. Their method (white male landowners only) was crude, but better than nothing. We can do it better now though.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I just can't tell who's who anymore...

  • BYODB||

    Wow, so the article gives a bunch of examples of Democrats doing actual bad things and the 'bad things' the Republicans are doing are...saying they support Trump?


    Interesting.


    I know there actual terrible things the Republicans do, so it's curious that 'being like Trump' was the worst thing they could find.

  • Eric||

    Well. Trump is pretty gross in just about every way a person can be gross.

  • ThomasD||

    If you view this article, not as a coherent argument, but as a form of virtue signaling then there is no problem with the flaw you noted.

  • Eidde||

    SEATTLE: "We want more of your money. Give it to us!"

    AMAZON: "This makes us wonder if we really want to expand our Seattle operations."

    SEATTLE: "There, right there, you saw it! They're threatening us!"

  • ||

    What's with this 'it's their social responsibility' shit?

  • KevinP||

    The dark cloud of tribal fascism is always descending upon Republicans but it always turns out to be composed of progressives and Democrats.

    Since Trump's Election, Violence Against His Supporters Has Become Routine

    Dozens of attacks are listed. Read the full article.

  • ThomasD||

    Well sure.

    But they mean well so it all cancels out in the end.

    Unlike those populists. Once you start from bad motives the outcome doesn't matter.

    / progspeak

  • Benitacanova||

    So the examples on the left are unconstitutional while those on the right are simply about riding coattails...

    P.s. how was loser jonah allowed to use the title of Burnham's masterpiece?

  • Rockabilly||

    Commies are on the left and the right.

    so fuck all you and your fucking commie laws.

    I will do what I want.

  • Headache||

    Working Washington. "It's a felony under state law to threaten substantial harm to the business or financial condition of any person, corporation or unincorporated association in an attempt to influence the vote or any other official action of a public servant."

    Amazon is a corporation, so I guess the city is violating state law.

  • ||

    The progressive left are far more nefarious if you ask me, J.D.

    It's not even close actually.

  • ||

    For example, can someone provide the equivalent on the right to the craziness going on in Seattle and Cuomo's 'communism by other means' edicts?

    Or the complete abandonment of any free speech protection on social media platforms like Twitter, FB and now the insane policy change at Spotify?

    Just like progressive Democrtas rule the academic ranks, they rule on this front.

    I can't believe it's even a debate.

  • Nardz||

    Opioids!
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    /s

  • ||

    Yeh, but that sort of thing something that's been part of Americana going back to Prohibition. War on Drugs, Poverty are a bi-partisan clusterfuck.

  • Bob Mitchell||

    You just could of repeated the words, stereotyping everyone, and been done with it.

  • vek||

    So as per usual here at Reason they're equivocating optics they don't like, with ACTUAL horrible laws that violate rights.

    Trump is NOT great on a lot of his policies, and the Rs DO support a lot of bad laws too on some things. But there is NO COMPARISON in 2018 between the Rs and Ds. The Ds have gone full on totalitarian. Even Trump, the most blustery R of them all, is a far cry from the level of authoritarianism displayed by middle of the road Democrats today.

    Also, our Democratic Republic is falling apart because we're ignoring the REPUBLIC portion of that. Frankly I don't think this country is savable via the ballot box anymore. The only way that might work is if we cut lose California and/or other parts of the west coast to rebalance the political landscape. Say what you want about dumb Republican social values, but they more or less agree with the founding principles of the USA. The Dems are 110% against EVERYTHING at this point.

    If the country doesn't peacefully break apart we're either going to slowly slip into a Fabian Socialist hell hole, or there will be a civil war. That's why I'm rooting for California just leaving and sparing the rest of the country. It will buy a couple decades for line towing conservatives and libertarian leaners to argue things out fix the rest of the country anyway!

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    That's putting a lot of faith in the "line towing conservatives and libertarian leaners" to reach a meaningful consensus. Still, I like the optimism therein.

  • vek||

    Well I don't think it would be Utopia or anything! But it would be a VAST improvement from today. The average line towing conservative wants smaller government (in most areas), lower taxes, less top down control, etc. They do like to control some social things via laws, which libertarians would fight them on, and many are too pro war for my liking... But the Dems are as bad or worse on all the things line towing Rs are bad on PLUS 10,000 other things they're horrible on.

    Really the biggest battle libertarians would have to win is "Look, your moral values may well be correct on XYZ issue, but it's not the governments place to pass laws on them. Convince people they're bad in the court of public opinion instead." That might almost be winnable with many. I convinced a hardcore Christian Conservative girlfriend of mine, after a decent length of time, that weed should be legalized even though it's "bad"... AND THEN convinced her crack and heroin should be too! So there's hope I guess. More hope than convincing communists to disavow every single thing they believe in anyway... The principles in theory are already there for most conservatives IMO.

  • Michael Hihn||

    The Ds have gone full on totalitarian. Even Trump, the most blustery R of them all, is a far cry from the level of authoritarianism displayed by middle of the road Democrats today.

    Which Democrats have threatened several fundamental rights. With the power to do so?

    How can Democrats be totalitarian when all the POWER is held by Republicans?
    Can my paper boy be totalitarian?

    How many Democrats are using their political office to so greatly enrich their personal wealth? In violation of the Constitution?

    How many Democrats are threatening multiple constitutional crises? With no power?

    How can there be an abuse of power, by people with no power to abuse?

    Left - Right = Zero
    Which is why God invented libertarians!.

  • Azathoth!!||

    All the power is not held by Republicans.

    Thank you for playing.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Which Democrats have threatened several fundamental rights. With the power to do so?

    How can Democrats be totalitarian when all the POWER is held by Republicans?
    Can my paper boy be totalitarian?

    How many Democrats are using their political office to so greatly enrich their personal wealth? In violation of the Constitution?

    How many Democrats are threatening multiple constitutional crises? With no power?

    How can there be an abuse of power, by people with no power to abuse?

    Left - Right = Zero
    Which is why God invented libertarians!.

  • vek||

    Jesus Hihn. I'm not going to even go into half of that because I don't have the time... But the Ds are perfectly happy to steal as much of peoples money as they can get their hands on (welfare in its many forms), force them to do things they don't want to do (gay wedding cakes anybody!?, take away rights they do want (guns, being anti car, any property rights, etc etc etc), and I could go on forever.

    Now what has Trump ACTUALLY DONE that violated anybodies rights??????? Nada. Or nothing any worse than any other recent president anyway. You people are just delusional because he isn't "nice" and pandering to all the bleeding heart pussy fetishes the left has developed in recent years. But not being a bleeding heart pussy doesn't make one LITERALLY HITLER.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Evasion.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Every single pointwwas evaded.

    Which Democrats have threatened several fundamental rights. With the power to do so?

    How can Democrats be totalitarian when all the POWER is held by Republicans?
    Can my paper boy be totalitarian?

    How many Democrats are using their political office to so greatly enrich their personal wealth? In violation of the Constitution?

    How many Democrats are threatening multiple constitutional crises? With no power?

    How can there be an abuse of power, by people with no power to abuse?

    Left - Right = Zero
    Which is why God invented libertarians!.

  • KevinP||

    Which Democrats have threatened several fundamental rights. With the power to do so?

    The dark cloud of intolerance is always descending upon Republicans ...

    NRA Sues New York for Punishing Financial Institutions Doing Business With Group


    Quotes (but read the whole article):
    The National Rifle Association on Friday sued the state of New York for fining and coercing financial institutions until they severed their connections to the gun-rights group.

    Governor Andrew Cuomo and the Department of Financial Services, engaged in a "blacklisting campaign" against banks and insurance companies who did business with the NRA, infringing upon the group's constitutional right to "speak freely about gun-related issues and defend the Second Amendment,".

    The NRA presented an April letter from Maria Vullo, the DFS's superintendent, warning banks under her purview about the "reputational risk" of doing business with gun-rights groups. The state also pressured the companies behind the scenes.

    "Directed by Governor Cuomo, this campaign involves selective prosecution, backroom exhortations, and public threats with a singular goal—to deprive the NRA and its constituents of their First Amendment right to speak freely about gun-related issues and defend the Second Amendment," the complaint states.
  • Michael Hihn||

    Diversion

  • vek||

    Diversion? LOL So when presented with an actual example of Democrats using STATE FORCE against a private entity and its members, it's merely diversion! Yet Trump saying mean things is somehow an ACTUAL fascist takeover of the universe. You really are a piece of work man!

  • Michael Hihn||

    (posted in defense of MORE aggression by a dumbfuck bully ,... and as RIDICULE)

    DEAR VEK --- FUCKWAD .AND TRUMPTARD (same thing!)

    The challenge was "FUNDAMENTAL rights."

    You really are a piece of work man!

    i DON'Yt READ AT YOUR FOURTH GRADE LEVEL!
    AND KICKED YOUR SORRY ASS AGAIN

    Are right--wing goobers COMPELLED to publicly humiliate themselevs .. over ... and over ... and over ... for all of eternity????

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Oh great, an entire comments thread of more rancorous, embittered, obtuse bile from the extremely partisan LINOs on both sides, and the self-hating destroyers of discourse.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    I would like to amend that statement as on further reading I have discovered some interesting and thoughtful posts.

    Please persuade Hihn to shaddap his face uno momento!

  • Michael Hihn||

    Left -Right = Zero

  • PL.reason||

    left+right=0

  • PL.reason||

    really? citing Madeleine Albright who said "There's a special place in hell for women who don't help each other!" in support of Hillary. I will stick to Hayek, thanks.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online