Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Hey, Progressives and Conservatives: You’re Stuck With Each Other

So long as anything resembling legitimate elections continue to be held, no political coalition will gain a permanent lock on the future.

top image: Terray Sylvester / VWPics/Newscom; bottom image: Terray Sylvester / VWPics/Newscomtop image: Terray Sylvester / VWPics/Newscom; bottom image: Terray Sylvester / VWPics/NewscomAh, modern not-so liberal democracy, in which one taunts political enemies with vows of total destruction.

"Hey Far Right: Gonna beat you," trolled progressive Hollywood powerhouse Joss Whedon, in the lead up to Independence Day. "Not gonna start a war, not gonna shoot you, run you over, threaten your kids. Gonna beat you with passionate compassion. With journalism, activism, the Law. With v o t e s. Your rage is fear. Our rage is love. Our state is united. Happy 4th."

That's sort of the flipside of conservative pundit Dennis Prager, speaking last February: "If we don't defeat the left, America loses. I never call for unity because it's not valid."

Gonna beat you and defeat you—there's a pretty lousy pop song in there. But what those words don't offer is is a recipe for maintaining a free and functioning democratic political system. Because, in the real world, wins and defeats are temporary, and the next turnabout is only a political cycle away. That is, we're all going to be living with each other for a long time to come.

That Team Blue and Team Red fantasize about total victory over one another is no shocker in our current loathing-fueled political environment. Pace Whedon—who seems to have forgotten his insights with regard to his series Firefly: "nothing will change in the future: technology will advance, but we will still have the same political, moral, and ethical problems as today"—his side's rage is not "love," it's just frigging rage, as is that of his counterparts.

"Democratic and Republican voters...despise each other, and to a degree that political scientists and pollsters say has gotten significantly worse over the last 50 years," Emily Badger and Niraj Chokshi wrote for The New York Times last summer.

Nothing has changed since then.

"Prior to the era of polarization, ingroup favoritism, that is, partisans' enthusiasm for their party or candidate, was the driving force behind political participation," write Shanto Iyengar and Masha Krupenkin of Stanford University in a recent Advances in Political Psychology article. "More recently, however, it is hostility toward the out-party that makes people more inclined to participate. The primal sense of 'us against them' makes partisans fixate on the goal of defeating and even humiliating the opposition at all costs."

That certainly fits with the nasty public dialogue in political debates. It also explains further efforts to publicly confront political enemies ("opponents" is too soft a word to use in this environment)—to chase them from restaurants, delegitimize their media outlets, isolate their activist organizations, deny them access to banking services, etc. These aren't efforts to win policy battles—they're aimed at the total destruction of those with opposing views and affiliations.

But free societies don't make any provision for beating and defeating opponents in any kind of permanent way. Republicans fantasize about a "hundred-year majority" and Democrats stroke themselves with talk of a "permanent progressive majority," but it's all back-patting self-delusion. Opinions and affiliations come and go.

For instance, the millennials who have a soft spot for Che paraphernalia (only 36 percent have a "very unfavorable" view of communism, according to the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation's Annual Report on U.S. Attitudes Toward Socialism) are followed by Generation Z with stronger entrepreneurial spirit and less time for waving red flags (51 percent have a "very unfavorable" view of communism). Then again, given the perverse flow of history, a bizarrely high proportion of the following generation will probably think Benito Mussolini or the Ayatollah Khomeini was a swell guy.

So long as anything resembling legitimate elections continue to be held, no political coalition will gain a permanent lock on the future by gazing upon on any temporary preponderance of opinion as a crystal-ball read of political eternity. Instead, victories will come and go, and the winners and losers will have to continue to take turns transitioning from role to role.

This, I'll point out, is something libertarians learned a long time ago. With our political victories usually one-off policy triumphs unrelated to electoral gains, we've long made our peace living alongside people with whom we disagree. We may not respect their opinions—hell, we may cheerfully refuse to abide by the laws and policies they implement during their turns in power—but we still eat alongside our opponents, do business with them, and say "hello" in the street. We make peace with people who harbor very different political affiliations because we have no reasonable alternative.

It's time for Team Red and Team Blue to step up to that same level of maturity. Nothing but continuing and escalating conflict lies down the road they've chosen so far.

"If civility is out of style, where do we end up next," Steven Greenhut asked in a recent column. "I don't believe a [civil] war is by any means likely, but I'm fearful of the kind of discourse we might find acceptable by the start of the next presidential election."

If trends continue, that discourse is likely to get worse without resolving anything. Iyengar and Krupenkin point out that political conflict has a tendency to escalate because, unlike with social divides such as race or religion, there's no taboo against stepping up the hostility. But in the U.S., politics increasingly correlate with racial, religious, and lifestyle divisions, and that aggravates the friction.

"Research in comparative politics has long demonstrated that when social cleavages overlap or reinforce each other (as in the case of race and partisanship in the United States or language and region in Catalonia), the resulting convergence of multiple identities creates an especially strong sense of group identity," they write. "Under these conditions, dissatisfaction with political outcomes frequently results in mass movements to demand group autonomy, in some cases using violent forms of protest."

Joss Whedon can fantasize all he wants about how he's "gonna beat" the right. And Dennis Prager can plan to "defeat the left" to his heart's content. But in a world in which political tides ebb and flow, the fact is that they're both going to have to find a way to live with each other—and maybe even leave each other alone—unless they really look forward to a future of demands for "group autonomy" and "violent forms of protest."

And yeah, that means the rest of us are stuck with them, too.

Photo Credit: top image: Terray Sylvester / VWPics/Newscom; bottom image: Terray Sylvester / VWPics/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.

  • DajjaI||

    Are you kidding?? Incivility is the shit. We have free speech - might as well use it!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Use it why it lasts, that is.

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    Speaking of incivility... this thread is Hihnfected. If you're reading this, consider yourself warned: extreme boldface, smirking and ass-jamming ahead.

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    Thank you for all those fine definitions Mr. Hihn. It's so kind of you to resurrect a dead thread just to educate me.

    But please, could you let me know what your post has to do with, well, anything?

  • Fancylad||

    He gets fifty cents from Media Matters for each thread he derails, so it doesn't really need to be about anything relevant.

  • Fancylad||

    He gets fifty cents from Media Matters for each thread he derails, so it doesn't really need to be about anything relevant.

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    Mr. Fake-Hihn, I think all the sneering, bold-face, and ass-jamming should qualify this sock for a place on your enemies list, don't you? I ask 'cause that'd put me in there under *3* socks, which I think means I get a free Reason subscription. Or maybe a bound copy of SugarFree's latest tome. I forget which...

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano is my bitch.

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    You mean he's *our* bitch, sock #2.

  • hello.||

    HATING a Hillary or a Donald is like a loyalty oath, a purity pledge, imposed conformity.

    You of all people would know. How's that Mueller indictment coming you obsolete old piece of shit?

  • Cy||

    RUSSIA! RUSSIA! RUSSIA!

    It was HER TURN!

  • Rockabilly||

    A Russian Robot tried to brainwash me to vote for tumps but instead I voted for Gary Johnson 3 times; sadly he still lost. There is hope.

  • Sevo||

    "He has 15 of them, chump.
    And four guilty pleas."
    5 for 40 in a 35-zone, 8 for 'lying to a federal agent' and the others for stuff which is even that connected to Trump.
    Fuck off, you pathetic piece of shit.

  • creech||

    Robert Poole was (is) a libertarian with solutions that flowed from libertarian principles. Several years ago, a Libertarian ran for governor of Virginia and was roundly criticized by other libertarians for advocating a Poolean method by which motorists, and only motorists, could be charged for using highways. As Mr. Hihn notes, the purist vs. practical war has been going on in the LP since at least 1980 when Clark/Koch were derided by some as JFK-lite.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Your version, Michael, is pro-government. You've managed to convince yourself that this is the sole way to 'expand' liberty while not seeing that you advocate, endlessly, for restricting it.

    Liberty lovers look for the solution that expands liberty. What happens to government is irrelevant. You actively campaign FOR government if the solution that expands liberty isn't good for government as well.

    For example, liberty lovers don't use tax credits at all. They eliminate the theft of income that is referred to as 'taxation'.

    You prefer tax 'credits'.

    See?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    And it isn't even really Hihn.

  • Devastator||

    Have fun in pound me in the ass federal prison for tax evasion. I'm a pragmatist, I don't really want that particular outcome.

  • ace_m82||

    Anti-government is pretty close to liberty. Why? Cause government murders, as in 262 million unarmed people in 100 years.

    www.reason.com/archives/2014/0.....-and-proud

    What's Hihn's solution? That it doesn't matter what the government does, as long as it's elected, then it must be "the will of the people". And, just to prove the point, he actively defends Nazis:

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

    As the Nazis were elected, 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 many of the other times I've brought it up, Hihn will now come forward to defend the Nazis and their "rights" and "freedom"...

    Hihn's solution? More like the Final Solution!

  • ace_m82||

    Hihn, I know this is hard to follow, but I asked if the Jews were free to leave in the 1940s. Your like was to a boatload in the 1930s.

    "Shame on you for intentionally denying FDR's moral atrocity"

    I don't, and won't. FDR was just a less successful Fascist.

    "Tell us why you say people have no right to form a government."

    They initiate force twice, once when they tax, and again when they attempt to enforce their claim of a monopoly on force.

    You may form an organization with any willing humans and call it a "government" if you like. You may NOT do so with unwilling humans. This is simple.

    "Why do you reject 'consent of the governed,' authoritarian?"

    Because your concept of that term involves defending Nazis as acting within their rights?

    "Consent of the governed", if it means "will of the majority", is not morally different from other Utilitarian theories, and has the same moral failings, such as "the Lonesome Stranger"

    www.phil0sophy101.blogspot.com.....anger.html

    Actually, it's because people will come together into groups and oppress others as long as they can get away with it. These are called "cartels", or if they exist long enough, become "governments".

    Did you ever think that if your theory leads to moral atrocities, that it may be wrong?

  • ace_m82||

    2nd sentence, "like" should be "link"

  • ace_m82||

    Yes, it is still visible a few posts above. But, just in case you're really lazy, Hihn, let me quote us:

    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!!

    As for your "question", here's the answer just in case you can't look at the top of your screen:

    You may form an organization with any willing humans and call it a "government" if you like. You may NOT do so with unwilling humans. This is simple.

    People will come together into groups and oppress others as long as they can get away with it. These are called "cartels", or if they exist long enough, become "governments". The second is no more legitimate than the first.

    Did you ever think that if your theory leads to moral atrocities, that it may be wrong?

  • Lester224||

    Wait somebody's defending Hitler here by saying that Jews were allowed to leave concentration camps? Crazy dudes.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It's not just somebody. It's Hihn.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Whoever it is, we should probably band together and get of the stupid twat. He dominates too many comment sections with his nonsensical ravings.

    Lets just throw him away like the garbage he is.

  • jay||

    I think what he is saying is that there is the argument politically about what went on in nazi germany, which I don't think anyone here is defending. Aside from this, there is a responsibility for the people inside of a country that goes beyond, just what that society "allows" you to do. You have inalienable rights, but it is still up to you to ensure you don't have a government that violate them. The government is not some separate entity that you wave your hand at when it no longer respects individual rights, even in part. Any respect one has for proper government requires one to take responsibility for the government one has, even if all one can do is leave. The fact that legitimate rights are violated by nazi germany, does not mean the german people are not responsible for allowing it to happen, even the ones who were victims and even after the point that they had no choice.

  • ace_m82||

    I appreciate your inability to recognize reality, Hihn.

    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!!

  • ace_m82||

    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!!

    Concentration camps didn't happen, the Jews willingly died for the Nazis!

    Keep it up Hihn!

    "It evolves when you get trapped in your crazy bullshit that consent of the governed must be unanimous -- which means one person can overrule 350 million"

    Yes, they can. If the government decides "screw you, you die", it doesn't matter how many people agree with it. The individual is sovereign.

    You may form an organization with any willing humans and call it a "government" if you like. You may NOT do so with unwilling humans. This is simple.

    People will come together into groups and oppress others as long as they can get away with it. These are called "cartels", or if they exist long enough, become "governments". The second is no more legitimate than the first.

    "are YOU free to emigrate?"

    Yes, and you are NOT free to make me, or to kill me for failing to do so.

    Were the Nazis within their "rights" to kill the Jews, even if that represented "consent of the governed"? You know the answer, and you REFUSE to acknowledge it, because you categorically refuse to change your mind, even if that means saying the Nazis were good libertarians!

    Did you ever think that if your theory leads to moral atrocities, that it may be wrong?

  • ace_m82||

    "You confirm your demands to overrule 350 million Americans, denying THEIR liberty,"

    No human or group has the "liberty" to initiate force.

    "And that we have no right to form voluntary associations."

    Government isn't voluntary. See the Civil War.

    Me: "Were the Nazis within their "rights" to kill the Jews, even if that represented "consent of the governed"?"
    Hihn: "No"

    Why not? They were elected, right? And that's how you determine "consent of the governed" (by your own "logic"). And if you have "consent of the governed", then rights aren't violated" (by your own "logic").

    So, if that's your answer, then you are logically inconsistent, and therefore wrong. I expect your apology immediately.

    "If only one government on earth killed its people, YOU say that is good reason to deny ALL governments.'

    Name a government that didn't kill its people. I'll wait.

    "You've been stalking and attacking me for over a year"

    No, I've been responding to stupid for years and years. You're just a bigger offender than most, and therefore get more responses. You aren't special.

    "98% of Americans disagree with you"

    Majority doesn't make right. How many Americans think government should be smaller and bigger at the same time?

    "And you are the one refusing questions."

    Which one have I failed to answer directly?

    Now, if the government is elected on the platform of "screw you, you die", are they within their "rights" to murder you? Why or why not?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano having another poasting stroke.

  • ace_m82||

    "THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT DOES NOT KILL PEOPLE"

    Every war. The trail of tears. Wounded Knee. Waco. Etc.

    "BY THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED

    PROVE OTHERWISE"

    People vote for murder and other initiations of force.

    "ON WHAT BASIS DO YOU CLAIM THE POWER TO
    OVERRULE 350 MILLION AMERICANS, AND DENY
    OUR RIGHT TO FORM VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS"

    You may form an organization with any willing humans and call it a "government" if you like. You may NOT do so with unwilling humans. This is simple.

    People will come together into groups and oppress others as long as they can get away with it. These are called "cartels", or if they exist long enough, become "governments". The second is no more legitimate than the first.

    "WHY ARE ALL KIWANIS DUES THEFT?"

    They aren't. They don't send men with guns.

    "WHY DO THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO DEMAND DUES
    AS A CONDITION OF MEMBERSHIP ...OR EXPEL YOU"

    They do. They don't try to murder me and steal my stuff if I don't pay (unlike government).

    Why do you need to covet, steal, and murder to be happy?

    God Bless you, Hihn!

  • ace_m82||

    "THAT NEVER HAPPENED."

    1. Taxation
    2. Anytime they attempt to enforce their claim on a monopoly of force.
    3. Declarations of war
    4. Drafts
    5. Literally anything they do that involves unwilling people (who didn't initiate force).

    "YOU DEMAND THE POWER TO OVERRULE EVERYTHING"

    Only initiations of force. You can't do that, because you love them.

    "You forgot to include your bullshit about armed storm troopers kicking down your door. "

    And if I stop paying the cartel my "protection fees"?

    "You have the right to emigrate"

    You have no right to my property.

    "Stop sucking off America's wealth and opportunity ... created and maintained by people you claim had no right to do so."

    I don't. You are correct that other people make wealth and opportunity. You are wrong that government does it. They steal it.

    "A fucking freeloader."

    Because I won't steal? Or because I won't murder?

  • ace_m82||

    "You are correct that other people make wealth and opportunity.(lol) They created he government,"

    Yes, those ones are the thieves and murderers. One hardly calls the cartel creators of "wealth and opportunity", even if they do contain some, for some evil people.

    "They created a government that allows it..."

    A negative to wealth and opportunity.

    "You say they had no right to do so."

    Not if it initiates force, and it knows no other way.

    Now, if the government is elected on the platform of "screw you, you die", are they within their "rights" to murder you? Why or why not? Answer!

  • perlchpr||

    I truly don't understand why anyone bothers to respond to Hihn with anything other than a short, sharp insult. He's not worth the effort.

  • ace_m82||

    I just copy his worst errors into a word doc. That makes the "discussions" really short. We all know he can't admit he's wrong, so he has to do things like defend Nazis.

    Otherwise the casual reader might think we can't answer his ridiculous points.

  • Rockabilly||

    Form your own government man, just leave me out of it.

  • ace_m82||

    "I don't want you."

    Then why do you keep sending men with guns (government goons) to keep me in your government? Just let us go!

  • BYODB||


    NOBODY STOPS YOU FROM EMIGRATING, PSYCHO.

    Wrong. Other countries stop us from emigrating. Duh, McFly.

  • ace_m82||

    "NOBODY STOPS YOU FROM EMIGRATING, PSYCHO."

    So much for the rights to life, liberty, and property, amiright?

    Tell us again how the Nazis were good libertarians because they let the Jews escape (until they didn't)!

    So, Hihn, if the government were elected on the "screw Hihn, he dies" platform, would it be within their rights to murder you or not? It's a simple question, so it should be a simple answer, right?

    Did you ever think that if your theory leads to moral atrocities, that it may be wrong?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Cool story bro.

  • ace_m82||

    "Cowardly diversion."

    You want to steal my land, freedom, and life. Not a diversion.

    "THOSE WORDS MEAN YOU CANNOT OVERRRULE 350 MILLION PEOPLE"

    Yes, I can, if they violate my "rights" (my right to do everything other than initiate force). That's true of any individual.

    "NON-RESPONSIVE."

    He claims while he doesn't respond...

    "Yours are a mortal atrocity"

    Yes, refusing to initiate force is so very immoral, Hihn.

    "STILL REFUSES TO ANSWER HOW GOVERNMENT IS DIFFERENT THAN KIWANIS."

    One initiates force. One doesn't.

    "STILL RFEUSES HIS CLAIM THAT PEOPLE HAVE NO RIGHT TO FORM A GOVERNMENT."

    Still refuses to respond to:

    You may form an organization with any willing humans and call it a "government" if you like. You may NOT do so with unwilling humans. This is simple.

    People will come together into groups and oppress others as long as they can get away with it. These are called "cartels", or if they exist long enough, become "governments". The second is no more legitimate than the first.

  • ace_m82||

    "More proof of you authoritarianism."

    Yes, claiming any "right" to life, liberty, or property makes me an "authoritarian". That's how words work, Hihn!

    "Now people have no right to disagree with you on that."

    Oh, you can believe whatever you want. You just can't send men-with-guns after me unless I initiated force.

    "And imposing anarchy on people who reject it."

    Impressive. Every word in that sentence was wrong.

  • ace_m82||

    "BULLSHIT"

    So, taxation and an attack upon people who attempt to respond with force are NOT initiations of force? Theft and murder aren't initiations of force, Hihn? Answer!

    "That's an opinion. Authoritarian,"

    Yes, it is. It also mirrors reality perfectly and is therefore a true statement.

    "By what right do you impose your opinions on 350 million American?"

    All of them ("rights"). Regardless of any majority, no human or group may initiate force.

    "By what right do you declare, unilaterally, that the Constitution is not valid?"

    See above.

  • ace_m82||

    "How are Kiwanis dues and initiation of force?"

    So I see you've decided to act stupid. No, the government is an initiation of force. Once when it taxes, and once when it claims a monopoly on force.

    "EXPULSION od 'voters' who refuse to pay."

    That's fine for them. In fact, if the government didn't let me participate if I didn't let them steal from me, that'd be fine. The problem is, they steal my property in the meantime, and refuse to let competition work.

    " IS SEIZING THEIR DUES"

    I owe them nothing.

    "Government is less punitive than Kiwanis."

    Kiwanis doesn't murder or steal. So, no.

    "Why do we have no right to form voluntary associations, and vote dues, without your FUCKING permission?"

    You may form an organization with any willing humans and call it a "government" if you like. You may NOT do so with unwilling humans. This is simple.

    People will come together into groups and oppress others as long as they can get away with it. These are called "cartels", or if they exist long enough, become "governments". The second is no more legitimate than the first.

    "By what right do you impose the values of anarchy on people, against their will?"

    Impressive. Every word in that sentence was wrong.

    Telling you you're wrong isn't "aggression". It's defense of truth. Why do you hate it so?

    God Bless you, Hihn!

  • ace_m82||

    Again, I'll answer:

    You may form an organization with any willing humans and call it a "government" if you like. You may NOT do so with unwilling humans. This is simple.

    People will come together into groups and oppress others as long as they can get away with it. These are called "cartels", or if they exist long enough, become "governments". The second is no more legitimate than the first.

    Did you ever think that if your theory leads to moral atrocities, that it may be wrong?

  • ace_m82||

    "YOU CANNOT OVERRULE 350 MILLION PEOPLE ... WITHOUT VIOLATING THEIR LIBERTIES"

    You have no liberty to initiate force, period.

    "BY WHAT RIGHT CAN YOU DENY THIS?"

    My right to life, liberty, and property (aka, my right to do anything other than initiate force).

  • ace_m82||

    "BY WHAT RIGHT CAN YOU DENY THIS?"

    Your "rights" (the one right to do anything other than initiate force) trumps any majority, Hihn. Majority doesn't make right.

    "WHY DO YOU DENY OUR RIGHT TO FORM VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS?"

    Government isn't voluntary. See the Civil War.

    "HOW CAN YOU DEMAND THAT ALL OF HUMANITY ACCEPT YOUR BULLSHIT ON FORCE"

    The "right" to self-defense. All humanity must accept that it cannot initiate force, regardless of how many thugs they can hire.

    "For at least the 50th time. It did NOT initiate force to deny
    1) Women's suffrage
    2) Inter-racial marriage
    3) Marriage equality"

    Yes, all did. All were done by government, and government is twice an initiation of force, once when it taxes, and again when it attempts to enforce its claim on a monopoly of force.

    Keep defending those Nazis, though. It makes you look perfectly reasonable.

  • ace_m82||

    "How does that give YOU the right to overrule them?"

    My right, that includes what you call the "right to life, liberty, and property" are not up for majority vote, Hihn.

    Keep defending those Nazis, though. It makes you look perfectly reasonable.

    God Bless you, Hihn!

  • ace_m82||

    Direct answer. Hihn lies for... profit, I guess?

  • ace_m82||

    "WHEN AND WHERE IS THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AUTHORIZED TO INITIATE FORCE.?"

    1. Taxation
    2. Anytime they attempt to enforce their claim on a monopoly of force.
    3. Declarations of war
    4. Drafts
    5. Literally anything they do.

    "DOES KIWANIS INITIATE FORCE BY PUNISHING YOU FOR NOT PAYING DUES?"

    They don't recognize my membership. They don't steal my stuff, kidnap me, or try to murder me.

    "IF TAXATION IS THEFT,. WHY ARE KIWANIS DUES NOT THEFT?"

    See above.

    "WHY IS THAT NOT WORSE THAN GOVERNMENT SEIZING THE DIES ... YOU OWE?"

    I owe them nothing. I never agreed to anything they do. If I joined Kiwanis, I did agree to it. Yet, they still don't attempt to murder me...

    "WHY DOES YOUR "ENTITLEMENT MENTALITY" DEMAND TO SUCK OFF THE WEALTH AND OPPORTUNITY OF AMERICA"

    Governments destroy wealth, not create it. Free markets make wealth. Governments steal it.

    "WHY DO 350 MILLION AMERICANS NEED YOUR PERMISSION TO FORM VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT?"

    You may form an organization with any willing humans and call it a "government" if you like. You may NOT do so with unwilling humans. This is simple.

    People will come together into groups and oppress others as long as they can get away with it. These are called "cartels", or if they exist long enough, become "governments". The second is no more legitimate than the first.

    Thanks for all the great quotes you just gave me, though. I appreciate it.

    God Bless you, Hihn!

  • ace_m82||

    "I RIDICULED you for NOT knowing FDR turned away an entire boatload of Jews --- which s about THIS country."

    I know that and continue to know that. I asked if the Jews were free to leave in the 1940s. Your like was to a boatload in the 1930s. Those are different times.

    I do appreciate it that you linked to a page that proved your wrong, though. That was uncharacteristically big of you.

  • ace_m82||

    "Could Jews still leave Germany in the 1940s ... 7 years AFTER the Nazis took power?"

    Your link shows they couldn't. Thanks for that.

    "His SOLE purpose is ... aggression ... while defending NON-aggression!!!!"

    Telling you you're wrong isn't aggression. If it were, every human on Earth would be guilty of it (except you, you couldn't admit you're wrong to save your life).

    God Bless you, Hihn!

  • Mark22||

    And that's the shame. Over 60% of Americans now self-identify with libertarian values,

    Well, that certainly doesn't include you,

    Progressives have been kicking our ass for decades, in the court of public opinion,

    "Our ass"? Hihn: you are a totalitarian asshole.

  • Mark22||

    I've been published for years, on both fiscal and social issues. Click my name to see the proof that you're full of shit.

    I suggest people just search for your name on Google: there is a lot of shit on you, none of it positive as far as I can tell.

  • hello.||

    History goes one direction. More centralization. Less freedom. More control. And no it is not "both sides". Useful idiots like you will be decrying Trump's incivility even as the left's dreamed-of mass-executions begin. It would be funny if it wasn't so fucking sad.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Except when it doesn't.

    The Founding of the USA was a rare exception to your accurate trend. The 13 Colonies went from less freedom and more centralization to more freedom and less centralization as the United State of America.

    Then the USA trended toward less freedom and more centralization.

  • CE||

    Then 11 years later they veered back to more central control.

  • Sometimes a Great Notion||

    China in the last few decades has seen an increase in economic freedom.

    The fall of the USSR has seen increased freedoms across their former empire.

    USA you can now buy pot in many states (I know a small freedom, unless you have been locked up for it in the past), also licensing laws have been taking it on the chin rolling back centralization and increasing freedom.

    I could go on but the point is history doesn't follow one direction and isn't set in stone.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    This is very true.

    The whole "arc of history" crap is nonsense.

  • Oli||

    Even worse: It's communist nonsense. They were the ones making the teleological interpretation fashionable in politics.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Pot and all drugs were legal in the USA before 1906. Outright bans came in the 1920s. The Controlled Substances Act in 1970s.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    How do you mean?

  • CE||

    Plus homeschooling. Not to mention the internet.

  • Citizen X||

    History goes one direction

    This was a false, simplistic assertion when Marx made it and it's false and simplistic now.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Hegelian bullshit continues. Though, I will admit to not understanding him super well, so perhaps I'm full of bullshit.

  • Zeb||

    Well, I guess we'd better just give up, then.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Anarchist wants to give up on the Constitutional Democratic Republic.

    Big surprise.

  • Zeb||

    That was a sarcastic response to a rather defeatist comment. If history is a one way ratchet towards tyranny (which I don't believe is the case), why bother?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The freedom is worth the fight?

  • Zeb||

    Right, but for that to be worthwhile, you must assume that it's possible. And I think it is at least possible to avoid descent into left-wing dystopia.

  • Eman||

    Why are you talking about "history" like a communist?

  • hello.||

    J.D. Tuccille circa 1927: "Trotskyites and Stalinists will just have to learn to get along with one another"
    J.D. Tuccille circa 1917: "Tsarists and revolutionaries will just have to learn to get along with one another"
    J.D. Tuccille circa 1789: "Aristocrats and Jacobins will just have to learn to get along with one another"

  • loveconstitution1789||

    J.D. Tuccille circa 1939: "German Nazis and Russian Communists will just have to learn to get along with each other"

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You both are part of the problem if you think either Team Red or Team Blue are anywhere close to Trotskyites, Stalinists, Aristocrats, Jacobins, Nazis, Communists, or Tsarists.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Team Blue is full of Socialists, Progressives, Trotskyites, Stalinists, Aristocrats, Jacobins, Nazis, Communists, and Tsarists.

  • sarcasmic||

    "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

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Very interesting, Anarchist.

    People also avoid unpopular political monikers because it hurts their cause.

    Socialists will do and say anything to avoid the truth that Nazis were/are Socialists. Being tied to murderous Socialists of the past really hurts the Socialist cause.

    Progressive became an unpopular term so they changed themselves to 'Liberals'.

    This shit is really not fooling anyone.

  • sarcasmic||

    Grow up.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Anarchists need to grow up.

    Admit you are anarchists and own it.

    Start your own voluntary society by buying land in South America or Africa or something. As the immigrants swarm your open border enclave, we will hear about your little Anarchy-land experience horrible horrible violence.

    Its like some people learn from history and some people don't. Clearly anarchists have learned from history and dont want their own area but would rather hang with us AWESOME Libertarians.

  • sarcasmic||

    Admit you are anarchists and own it.

    You are the only person in the entire world who thinks I'm an anarchist.

    I don't even know where that came from. The fact that I draw a distinction between law and legislation? The fact that I think that separating families is horrible? I don't get it.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    I have long thought that the desire to control others is the most fundamental human dimension. We can then plot things like altruism, religion, group adherence, conformity, etc. on the other axis and get some revealing groupings of any society.

  • sarcasmic||

    I have long thought that the desire to control others is the most fundamental human dimension.

    The fact that libertarians lack that desire is why we will never get anywhere politically. We want to take over the world and then leave people alone. People with that attitude don't win elections.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Libertarians want to take over the USA and rule with small and limited Constitutional Democratic Republic.

    You say non-Libertarian things. Just enough Libertopia jargon for the Lefties and Cosmos to reply and keep web traffic high. Just enough non-Libertarian stuff to see through the charade.

  • sarcasmic||

    You say non-Libertarian things.

    Says the authoritarian who pretends to support liberty.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    These are the Libertarian things that I say: Libertarianism is not about absolute Liberty. Libertarianism is about maximum Liberty under the Constitution and Rule of Law.

    You want absolute Liberty and Anarchy has that.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Why do you even need the term Libertarian? Because they are not conservative, and they do have a philosophical background that came out of a setting that is not strict adherence to the constitution. There is definite crossover, but very few people I've met would define Libertarian as being equivalent to Constitutionalist.

  • vek||

    I won't argue that many elected officials on Team Red are exactly that... The thing is most of the rank and file are pretty decent people who ACTUALLY believe in limited government and personal liberty in most of its forms. The non religious right is damn near libertarian leaning on most things even.

  • vek||

    I will agree that the establishment on ALL sides are assholes!

    I do not agree that there are not SOME people on all sides trying to do the "evil" things the other side says they are. Some Christians ARE trying to ban abortion, hate on the gays extra hard etc. And many on the left ARE waging war against Christians on all fronts too.

    MOST people aren't though. I think the problem is that a lot of the time the tail is wagging the dog, and the official policy of many organizations seems to be dictated by those on the more extreme side.

    I said a million years ago when I was just a stupid teenager that the Republicans should just say to the extreme religious wing "Look, abortion is the law of the land. It's a personal choice, like it or not we're not going to try to repeal it. Deal with it. Drugs are bad, but it makes even more problems to make them illegal. Deal with it. Finally gay people are gay... You can think they'll burn in hell all you want, but we aren't passing any laws about it. Deal with it. But we ARE going to be better on guns, taxes, and a ton of other shit, so you'll still vote for us."

    I'm positive they would have been killing it... Because realistically the religious folks weren't going to go left anyway, but a lot of centrists are turned off by the above. Idiots on all sides!

  • CE||

    If you don't think they are, you're not paying attention.

  • JFree||

    The source of that demonization of the other is a lifetime of choosing 'lesser of two evils'. Once a voter decides to do that, they have to get rid of the dissonance - and the way that's done is to demonize the shit out of the 'greater evil' so that they are the worst possible evil of all possible worlds. That way, no matter how crappy and evil and shitty the person you voted for turns out; they are still better than the other guy. You never have to doubt or regret your own decisions - or even contemplate them again after the fact. You just have to keep going to hell along with the side you initially chose as the lesser evil.

  • Zeb||

    Well, any of those things would probably have been better than what did happen. I know you are probably suggesting that it is impossible. But as others point out, American politics is not nearly that extreme (yet, anyway). And we had all better damn well hope it doesn't get that bad. Because if it does there is no hope for those of us who value freedom. And the way to avoid that is to keep a conversation and lively debate going, not to double down on being assholes to each other. The left is never going to get their perfect welfare state and we are never going to get libertopia. The best realistic hope is that we keep bouncing around an imperfect system that works reasonably well and doesn't get too authoritarian.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Team Blue does not want to discuss anything.

    Therein lies the problem. How does politics work in the USA when one side refuses to talk and play by the rules? They only want the game to favor them and when it doesn't they use violence.

    Trump indisputable evidence that the Lefty plan to make socialism the future political force in the USA has failed. it is now being rolled back and the non-Lefties are fighting back.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    And plenty of red shirts are not open to discussion, either.

    When anyone considers their agenda a "holy cause" then consideration, compromise, and rule-following are not necessary.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Team Red are sick of having everything 'American' pulled out from under them. Some don't have any patience for Lefties trying to murder them and take everything that they have.

    Team Libertarian seem to be sick of murderous Lefties too but we still have some willingness to talk.

    Expect to Hihn. That motherfucker is loco.

  • jay||

    i have heard of taxation is theft, but are you saying tax cuts are now theft? It is the system that puts people in a position that you have to choose one group over another, which is why social security should be phased out.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I got him to use BOLD everyone. He has been slacking lately on the bold that nobody reads.

  • Qsl||

    Ya, given that libertarianism will most likely always be the minority position the best way to advance the cause is to be a good neighbor to both the left and the right, offering better ways for each to fulfill their visions while moving away from authoritarianism, even if it is three steps forward, two steps back.

    That means a degree of flexibility which libertarians aren't know for, but the choosing a side and hoping to be thrown a bone from time to time hasn't worked particularly well.

    That means embracing government as a means to an end instead of jeering from the sidelines. That also means creating social institutions with the purpose of making government authority obsolete.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Hey, Progressives and Conservatives: You're Stuck With Each Other
    So long as anything resembling legitimate elections continue to be held, no political coalition will gain a permanent lock on the future.

    Raising Lefties up and lowering Conservatives down to make them the same at some weird level.

    Progressives and the Socialists that they are, will not be gaining political seats at the National level. Trump is the turning point for most of America that enough is enough. Socialists/Democrats/Lefties/Progressives/Liberals or whatever you want to call them are destroying America and want to destroy more. Freedom loving Americans are sick of it.

  • sarcasmic||

    Protectionist xenophobes aren't doing freedom any favors.

  • vek||

    Says who? Every immigrant we let into the country votes far to the left of native born Americans, so sayeth every poll ever done...

  • Mr. Dyslexic||

    FREE SHIT! That's why.

  • vek||

    Free shit... AND because they were raised in cultures that didn't value the same things we do to the extent we do.

    To remove your retarded and homosexual argument that everybody thinks it is PURELY because they're brown degenerates, let us talk about EUROPEAN immigrants.

    They vote to the left of native born American whites too! Why? Because in their god forsaken homelands they have nationalized medicine, no free speech, no gun rights, no 4th amendment protections, sky high taxes etc.

    People "on the right" in the UK are okay with having socialized medicine. They are OKAY with not being able to own guns. That shit don't fly 'round here.

    If somebody comes from a country where they're used to just their FedGov getting 40% of their paycheck, and in the USA FedGov ONLY gets 25%, they'll probably accept that as being AWESOME! Likewise on all other rights. They have lower expectations.

    We're just the most hardcore people in the world because of our history, therefore if we're taking in a random cross section of foreigners they will ALL, including Europeans, be to the left of native born Americans. The only way we could avoid this would be a political litmus test that demands strict ideological adherence to whatever things to become a citizen... Which I'm sure nobody would be stoked on.

    It's that simple.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You anarchists can start your own voluntary place and have open borders. Good luck.

    let me know when you start it up and I will donate 5 grams of salt. That's what you people will be using as money, right?

  • perlchpr||

    Don't be absurd. Anarchotopia will run on the Gold Standard.

  • Sedona Vortex Hunter||

    jesus christ, on any topic you decide to comment about you are both incredibly ill-informed as well as completely anti-liberty. The two actually seem to go hand in hand in many cases, so this is not surprising.

    The surprising or odd thing however is why in the hell do you post here? And more generally what mental disorder makes you imagine yourself and your beliefs aligning with those of a group you seem to have almost no actual real world agreement with? What is this delusion called?

    Its both fascinating and bizarre-- sort of reminds me of how I feel when I contemplate some bizarre deep sea creature that I can barley imagine as truly existing.

  • vek||

    Well I see somebody has bought into the idea that inflation is inherently good... It is not. It is potentially neutral, just like deflation.

    Deflation is not bad at all, IF that is the typical way things go. Deflation with fiat currencies, when it is unexpected is bad. But with a gold backed currency, where it is expected that it will be level or deflating, it is what everybody expects, so everybody plans around that. Therefore it's not bad.

    Interest rates adjust. For instance if you have small and regular deflation interest rates in nominal dollars could be near zero. Wages could stay the same, or go down, but nominal wages are MEANINGLESS, it's the purchasing power staying the same that matters. And it did just that in the 1800s.

    The one thing a gold/silver/whatever backed currency has going for it is that it has a BOTTOM that it won't go below. Pure fiat can be worth literally nothing. A silver dollar will always have commodity value.

    Personally I favor a fixed basket of precious metals, maybe even throw in some other commodities the government holds in reserve as well. We can work it out. We could construct a modern system that improves on the simple gold standard of the past, but retains the floor that protects the populace from government over printing currency to the point of hyper inflation.

  • jay||

    does it force REAL wages downward? does it lower actual demand? Or do prices decrease enabling people to buy more and have their saving go up in value?

  • ace_m82||

    Now Hihn is talking about something he knows even less about, economics. I'll let mises.org prove him wrong:

    www.mises.org/wire/deflation-always-good-economy

  • ace_m82||

    "DIVERSION"

    Truth is not "diversion".

    "What do you do?"

    Innovate. Become more productive. Liquidate my assets and do something else.

    Do you know why I wouldn't pay less? Because I'm not a price maker and the labor would leave to someone who would pay more.

    But, all of that is an actual diversion, as none of that has anything to do with price deflation (a general lowering of prices over time).

  • ace_m82||

    "Also ignorant of price deflation vs monetary deflation"

    I'm the one who actually brought up that the deflation you're talking about is price deflation. See above. Quit lying, Hihn, you're bad at it.

    "Or going out of business as our an -cap genius laughingly brags is better than reducing wages!"

    Compete or go out of business. Creative destruction is a good thing, Hihn.

    www.reason.com/reasontv/2018/0.....estruction

  • ace_m82||

    Hihn, you're completely lost when it comes to economics.

    "Dumbass just BRAGGED that he'd lay off all his employees ... instead of cutting their wages."

    Yes, because workers will just move to other places that pay more.

    "IF THE LABOR MARKET CAUSES WAGES TO DECLINE..."

    It didn't. It made me unable to compete.

    "his DELUSION that other employers can ... hire his workers paying more than the market!"

    2 different markets. One paying one wage, one paying another (how else would his "market wage" be different from mine?). So, other employers will pay right around what the "market wage" is, which is more than I can pay.

    "How many missed that he gave two contradictory responses?"

    I'd love to see how, and I'd love to see how you'd ever call anyone on that!

  • ace_m82||

    "Deflation affects ALL markets in the economy"

    It leaves foreign markets alone (almost completely). And you must have been speaking about that, because the 2 "market wages" were different.

    (Price) deflation is a good thing, especially in the long term.

  • ace_m82||

    "Different economy (snort)"

    There are over 7 billion economies.

    Your original question:
    You start a factory, paying a market wage. 10 years later, you have a new competitor, paying a market wage. His labor costs are lower than yours.

    How can they be less if he's a competitor paying a "market wage" unless the markets are different, as in different countries? It's not my fault you ask nonsensical questions.

    "You fucked up on monetary deflation"

    No, I kept using the term (price) deflation.

    "NEVER -- unless our dollar is also their currency."

    You are very small minded. Any act in one country affects another country even if only a little, as there is a global economy for most things. That's not hard, and it's why I added (almost completely). Something as huge as deflation (price or monetary) will effect other markets, because they trade with the country experiencing it.

    So go and read mises,org til you know something about the subject.

    www.mises.org/wire/deflation-always-good-economy
    www.mises.org/library/defense-deflation-0

  • vek||

    Hihn, you miss the fact that the PURCHASING POWER of the wages doesn't go down. It's all about expectations dude, and in a world where deflation was common, people wouldn't FREAK OUT if their wages went down once in awhile, because they'd know the price of milk went down during that time too.

    Also you forget that most people that stay at a job get raises, in real terms, as they get better/more experienced or outright promoted. So you may be able to keep somebodies wages the same, or even increase them in nominal dollars, as deflation occurs. If somebody never deserves promotion or a raise in real terms, they're probably the kinda person you can afford to lose if they quit over their 2% pay cut.

    Churn at most jobs would take care of most of it, and the fact that everybody KNOWS their nominal dollars are worth more takes care of the rest.

    The world existed with this very "problem" at many points in history, and it wasn't a big deal. Inflation AND deflation, if they're stable and predictable, are not THAT horrible. It's unexpected inflation/deflation that screws things up.

  • ace_m82||

    "ANOTHER DIVERSION"

    You'd be the one to think answering the question directly with the truth is a "diversion".

    "It means ducking the question and/or changing the sunject"

    You'd be the expert, Hihn.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Why would anyone need to stalk you? You manically try to dominate every article you post with dozens large posts, that ironically say nothing.

    In fact, we're starting to get together so we can work out a way to get rid of you for good. You're too big a nuisance.

    The key word being 'nuisance'. I suspect that defines your entire insignficant life, whoever you are.

  • vek||

    My last post on this Hihn.

    "If the supply for money is always equal to the demand for money ... WHY WOULD PRICES NOT BE STABLE"

    I never said the supply/demand of money was equal. And prices were NOT exactly stable either. Nor do they need to be!

    The main benefits of having a commodity based currency of some sort are:

    1. There is a FLOOR. With fiat your currency can become worth literally ZERO. Gold/Silver/Whatever will never become worth zero.

    2. It makes it a LOT harder for the government to manipulate the value of currency, interest rates, run massive deficits, etc. It removes power from the government, and essentially puts more of it back into the hands of the market. As we all know the market won't always be NICE in the short term, but it will level itself out sensibly, which is more than we can say for government when they're running the show.

    3. Although it wasn't price stable 100%, it was more predictable than infinitely variable government fiat. So MORE stable is better than LESS stable, even if it's not perfect.

    Those are the main reason I think commodity backed money of some sort are better than fiat. Perfection doesn't often exist in the real world, thus is the case of gold vs fiat. But I know I'd take gold over fiat any day.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks the cost of goods and services and overall wages going down at the same time is horrible.

  • ace_m82||

    "CHANGING THE SUBJECT IS A DIVERSION"

    It's not changing the subject to answer you directly.

  • Untermensch den 2||

    Way to illustrate the article's point there.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The article was stupid and further evidence that the Left knows how bad they are and want to reshape themselves as centrists when they are not.

    Lefties are socialists scumbags who are trying to rule you and murder dissenters.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    No. There is no equivalence. You should shut up and listen. Talking is useless for you, as you have nothing of value to contribute.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    So, basically, I won't ever vote. There's no way I will choose between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.

    I hope the L's start running more candidates for lower offices. Sure, there may be no chance of winning, but it sends a message that statist vs statist is not acceptable.

  • sarcasmic||

    I wish "none of the above" could win an election. Then the seat would remain empty for the next 2/4/6 years.

  • Citizen X||

    Combine that with automatically recording non-votes as "none of the above" and you're onto something. After all, it's the duty of everyone to participate in the democratic selection of new masters.

  • Zeb||

    I'd start voting again if voting for no one was an option.

  • 5Arete22||

    I do a write-in if no candidate on the ballot is substantially less bad than the others.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You could run for office and/or vote for people that do not want to run your life.

  • Zeb||

    I'd rather just focus on running my own life.

  • Citizen X||

    and/or vote for people that do not want to run your life

    These people don't run for office.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    True. Maybe that should change. If Libertarians just planned on one term and just did the best they could during that one term. No reelection campaign and the next Libertarian who wins takes the political position.

    Its tough because you want to get the Libertarian word out but being in Congress for decades kind of dilutes that small and limited government message.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Sarcasmic, no Anarchists are running so you dont really have a candidate to vote for.

  • Procyon Rotor||

    When you put out a house fire, what do you replace it with? When you remove a tumor, what do you replace it with? The one in your brain for example, what did they replace that with? Don't answer that. I think you were better off with the tumor.

    Getting government out is a policy. It is in fact, the only policy that actually advances liberty. That you don't understand this is why you're a typical statist, forever complaining that libertarians have no "policy proposals" to run other people's lives.

    You said above,
    "Why is this rocket science to you people?
    1) 90-95% of what government does.
    2) Salesmanship 101: show a better way to provide what people already want."

    The problem is that everything that government does, and most of what people already want, is anathema to liberty. If you want to abandon libertarian principles to save libertarian electability (to paraphrase Boosh), I've got three words for you. Fuck off, slaver.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano the dipshit solipsist thinks someone bringing up any kind of tumor is talking about the one that ate his final two brain cells.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano bellowing like a mewling little bitch.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Yeah, this whole talk of wanting to "destroy the Left" or "destroy the Right", and the associated calls for civil war/secession/violence, is mainly just an inability to seriously and correctly grapple with the arguments of the other side. It's much easier to whip up your tribe into a frenzy by claiming "they hate you and want to destroy you" than it is to put in the effort to understand different points of view. And no it's not just about Trump or Republicans, it's about Democrats too. Both tribes.

    I still find it morbidly fascinating that so many people can think that Trump is some literal new Hitler, or that Bernie Sanders or Hillary or Obama are some literal new Stalin or Mao. It's absurd. But the same people will shout "my guy isn't Hitler, but your guy is totally Hitler!" and vice-versa without any sense of irony.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    "is mainly just an inability to seriously and correctly grapple with the arguments of the other side."

    It doesn't help that both sides have been rather short on rational arguments for the last 50-40 years.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    an inability to seriously and correctly grapple with the arguments of the other side. It's much easier to whip up your tribe into a frenzy by claiming "they hate you and want to destroy you" than it is to put in the effort to understand different points of view.

    You're joking, right? You're the guy who keeps telling people that the only reason they oppose fully open borders is because they hate brown people. Not asking people questions, telling them what they think.

    Holy crap, dude. Get a mirror.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    the only reason they oppose fully open borders is because they hate brown people

    Umm, no, I haven't said that.

    But I know that the perpetually offended on the right would like that to be the case, so that they can continue to be perpetually offended.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Umm, no, I haven't said that.

    Umm, yes, you have.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    To paraphrase Barbie, "Thinking is hard!"

  • vek||

    I definitely know Trump is no Hitler... And Hillary is no Stalin or Mao... Bernie is a touch closer, but not nearly violent enough... But here's the thing: The stuff they DO want is horrible enough!

    I DO NOT WANT THE USA TO TURN INTO GERMANY/FRANCE/UK/ETC. I don't want to see this nation RUINED and turned into a garbage ass country like all the rest with hate speech laws, heavily restricted firearms ownership, double the size of government etc.

    I don't think Hillary would have opened up any Gulags by now if she had won, but what she would be trying to do is horrible enough to hate that ugly wench, and all her followers A LOT.

    They want to destroy everything that made America great and unique in world history... That is their goal #1, make us like every other shithole country where the government can do whatever they "feel" is best. I don't want to see that happen. Sooo fuck those people. But yeah, if those people won today, and got their way, perhaps in another 10-20 years, after we have no speech, no guns, etc it IS possible that a true Stalin wannabe might come along. So best to avoid going down that road at all IMO.

  • Ron||

    Vek said is so well

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Hillary is a clinical psychopath. She is also a political mafioso that uses progressive politics and a socialist agenda to enrich herself and her cronies. If she thought conservative politics would successfully lead to a Hillary presidency, she would switch without a second thought.

    Psychopaths have no principles.

  • CE||

    Secession is the most peaceful solution. Why keep enemies in the same tent?

  • vek||

    I dunno Hihn, I seem to recall some mighty prominent politicians doing EXACTLY THAT during the lead up to the last civil war. Not to mention all the other secessions/civil wars in history.

    The fact is that splitting up doesn't HAVE to be a civil war. That's a choice. Frankly I think enough people in the USA are so sick and tired of the shit from the other side of the political spectrum that they'd at least consider it as a reasonable option.

    What California Progtard wouldn't LOVE the idea of being able to open up the borders, put in universal healthcare, and ban all semi automatic guns WITHOUT BREAKING A SWEAT?

    And what Texas conservative wouldn't love the idea of cutting taxes, reforming legal immigration to something sane, and knowing he won't ever have to worry about having to hand his AR16 over to the feds in his lifetime?

    I'm all for it. So are lots of people. If it was done in good faith, it could be awesome for all political stripes. The Left Coast could turn itself into France, and the rest of the country could go back to being America. Sounds good to me!

  • Procyon Rotor||

    Everything is impossible until it happens.

  • vek||

    Nobody is talking about bringing back slavery Hihn. That's an evil practice, even abhorred by abolitionists in the 1700 and 1800s, who all still thought whites were superior.

    Peacefully splitting up is not inherently evil. As for getting elected... That depends on where things go. Imagine if shit gets 100x worse than it is. Outright riots on a scale greater than in the 60s. Bombings. Demands the other side cannot possibly accept. Etc.

    What if then Barrack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders, Jerry Brown, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Scott Walker, Justin Amash, etc ALL came out and held a press conference in support of splitting the west coast off. Maybe Bill Clinton, Bush Jr., Mitch McConnell, Elizabeth Warren, etc came out against it...

    Then what? Public opinion, and the opinion of the sitting president would be all important. A president could begin the process of either splitting the country peacefully, OR fighting against it politically. Maybe it doesn't get done in their term, but there's 65% support amongst the public, and a fiery candidate a la Trump/Bernie comes along with pro peaceful separation being his #1 issue.

    They COULD win. I'm not saying they would for sure, but it is entirely possible. It wouldn't be bad either. It could be awesome.

  • vek||

    Are you just intentionally missing my point?

    All I was saying is that IF shit got VASTLY WORSE than it is now, like worse than the 60s/70s shit that happened... And THEN a bunch of prominent politicians from both sides of the aisle came out and said they thought secession was a good idea... That would give credibility to the idea.

    Then it would be up to people currently elected in government to decide if they wanted to push for or against. In the next election cycle it could be THE single issue anybody gave a fuck about. If it was favored by most people, pro secession people might get elected all over the place. Blah blah blah.

    The point is merely that if shit got worse, and mainstream politicians treated it as a serious issue and serious consideration, that it could then become a real possibility. The main reason it's not now is because nobody people take seriously is pushing it. But with former presidents, senators, etc saying "Maybe we should consider this, seems like a good idea." that could put it on the table almost over night. If they were the wrong people it could push public opinion against it, which maybe was your point? But fact is it could go either way. It all depends on the particulars.

    But to say it's impossible is not correct.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano babbling his fact-free stupidity.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    no political coalition will gain a permanent lock on the future.

    The socialist coalition might though if they succeed with their plan to import enough socialists, especially of the south of the Rio Grande variety.

    Socialists by definition are anti-American. They despise the mainstream American population, which overwhelmingly rejects the philosophy of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky. Therefore, their long-term strategy for some time now has been to replace the existing American population with a foreign-born population more amenable to socialism.

    Look at what they succeeded in doing to California in the space of just one to two generations. If you don't think they could easily do the same thing to much of the rest of the country given a chance, you're kidding yourself.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Socialists by definition are anti-American.

    Socialists ARE Americans. I strongly abhor this tendency to redefine citizenship in ideological terms. I disagree with socialism, and I don't advocate for it, but I don't advocate stripping anyone of their citizenship, even metaphorically, based on these views.

    If we're going to go down the road of defining who is the "real American" with ideological tests, where do we draw the line? How about the person who favors private ownership of guns but thinks there should be a licensing requirement like with cars? Is that person "anti-American" because he doesn't support fully the Second Amendment? How about the person who thinks drugs should be illegal because they harm children? Is that person "anti-American" because he doesn't support a libertarian's conception of personal freedom or autonomy?

  • Cy||

    Your argument might be valid if those people weren't openly ignoring the Constitution. Are there socialists and communists in the USA who argue that they need to amend the Constitution to meet their ends? Maybe. 99.999% of them openly ignore and encourage everyone else to ignore the constitution. Those people, aren't Americans.

  • Citizen X||

    According to your definition, there are maybe 60 Americans, and none of them live anywhere near Washington DC.

  • Cy||

    Now you're just being ridiculous. How can someone claim to be something when they wipe their ass with the document that defines that something?

    Government enforced socialism ≠ American
    Government enforced communism ≠ American

    Importing vast quantities of people from other countries to pad your unconstitutional voting base's agenda ≠ American

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Okay so let's consider a thought experiment: Suppose the socialists successfully passed a constitutional amendment that nationalized all private property.

    Would they be "American" in your view?

  • Cy||

    Technically, yes. Would it happen? Not a snowballs chance in hell.

  • Cy||

    That's an interesting argument to have. So, we open the borders and fucktons of people flood in from socialist and communist countries, they or their children vote in the same shitty policies, legally, a new constitutional amendment, would this still be the US? Would that be, American?

    Russian's created the 'USSR.' Albanians attempted to create their own country on foreign soil using votes.

  • Zeb||

    Why would people coming from shitty countries want to turn the US into a shitty country like the ones they came from?
    I think that the big reason (to the extent that that actually happens) is that conservatives pretty much let the left have them. Immigrants from unpleasant countries are the perfect audience for the message of freedom and personal responsibility. Sell them on the American dream before the leftists can sell them the ideas of dependence and identity politics.

  • sarcasmic||

    Why would people coming from shitty countries want to turn the US into a shitty country like the ones they came from?

    Because they hate freedom, duh.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Why would people coming from shitty countries want to turn the US into a shitty country like the ones they came from?

    They dont value freedom like Americans. Some grow to like freedom but never really love freedom.

    Its like Boomers liking the good old days of bombing in the name of Communism but don't love American Socialism.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Freedom isn't free.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Why would people coming from shitty countries want to turn the US into a shitty country like the ones they came from?

    They never used to in the old days, but for many years now jerks like you have been telling the world that America sucks, that everything bad in the world is America's fault, and that the rest of the world are America's victims.

    People have been hearing this bullshit for so long that they believe it now, so they think that we're the ones who need to change and adapt to them, not the other way around. Which of course is exactly what you guys want, because it helps to "fundamentally transform" America.

  • Zeb||

    You have no idea what I want or what I think of America, dumbass.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Why would people coming from shitty countries want to turn the US into a shitty country like the ones they came from?

    At best, maybe 10% of immigrants come to the US for ideological reasons. The rest come because they want to escape some "shit hole". Unfortunately, they tend to bring attitudes that in some way contributed to shit-holeness back at home.

  • perlchpr||

    Why would people coming from shitty countries want to turn the US into a shitty country like the ones they came from?

    I can't explain it either, but "Californication" happens. See also: Massholes in NH.

  • Procyon Rotor||

    I can't explain it either, but "Californication" happens. See also: Massholes in NH.

    See also: New York City metastasizing into upstate.

  • Zeb||

    The constitution doesn't define the country, it defines the government. They are not the same thing. Any American who is not part of the government is free to ignore or despise the constitution or any law.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Exactly, Zeb.

  • Cy||

    "The constitution doesn't define the country, it defines the government."

    Where have you been the last 153 years?

  • Zeb||

    Haha. Well, that's the idea, anyway.

  • vek||

    1. It's a fuzzy line chemjeff, but there is a line somewhere. People who are against all of the major ideas the country was founded on may be American citizens, but they aren't Americans. You have to be generally down with free speech, limited government, 2A, etc to at least a FAIR degree. I personally would think someone was daft, but not NOT an American if they wanted to license all gun owners, provided they were on board with most other things.

    To make an extreme, if there was somebody who was an exact ideological clone of Lenin, do YOU think they're a proper American??? If the you're going to roll with the "America was founded on an idea" foundational myth (not the America was founded as a white Anglo-Saxon country, which is equally valid) then if you don't adhere to MOST of the ideas you can't really be an American right?

    2. In practical terms I don't know what's wrong with these people... All they really want to do is turn the US into a hell hole like the UK... Why not just move to the UK? If there was a country that said "Fuck it! We're going America 1776 style and going full tilt freedom!" There's a 99% chance I would move there. They already HAVE that option, so why do they have to ruin this country? Dicks.

  • vek||

    3. Immigrants vote stupidly because they don't know any better, and their cultures growing up abroad set the "bar" a lot lower than we consider acceptable for a lot of subjects. If the Feds take 20% of your income, but in your home country it was 40%, you're going to be happy with 20%, right?

    Americans are the most conservative/libertarian people on earth by the polls, so even right leaning people from say Europe or Asia are center-left compared to Americans on a lot of subjects. Many long time Hispanic residents in Texas and California were quite conservative, I would know I'm from Cali, and my family is part Mexican... But the new ones flooding in by the millions are fucked for probably a couple generations at least. They may convert in time, but that's a reason to not let in too many at any one moment IMO. The trick is that native born people need to be encouraging the newbs to drift OUR direction, not having so many coming in they pull the country THEIR direction.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    The trick is that native born people need to be encouraging the newbs to drift OUR direction, not having so many coming in they pull the country THEIR direction.

    Yes indeed, but it won't happen because it is precisely the opposite of what the socialist coalition wants to do.

    They WANT America to devolve into a one party socialist feudalistic hellhole just like every place you see to the south. With them being the one party in charge, naturally.

  • perlchpr||

    If there was a country that said "Fuck it! We're going America 1776 style and going full tilt freedom!" There's a 99% chance I would move there.

    *fistbump*

    I've said before, that if Texas ever left the union, I'd move there. And I'm from New Mexico. We hate Texans. ;)

  • Azathoth!!||

    Why would people coming from shitty countries want to turn the US into a shitty country like the ones they came from?

    We no longer do enough to make sure that being an American is what they want--and we no longer do enough to help them become Americans.

    Worse, we have an entire group of people who seem to want to do nothing but make sure they don't ever really assimilate*.

  • Azathoth!!||

    con't

    The constitution doesn't define the country, it defines the government. They are not the same thing. Any American who is not part of the government is free to ignore or despise the constitution or any law.

    The Constitution defines the country--and limits what government can do. You have it exactly backwards.

    *Assimilation is very important in the US. To be really American, people NEED to assimilate. But it doesn't mean what the most common definitions would have one believe. To assimilate into the US, one must adapt one's culture into the framework put forth in the Constitution. This means that the freedoms guaranteed therein must take precedence over past traditions and folkways. This means that you don't get to kill the Catholics next door--or the Tutsis down the street. You can argue, you can demean each other--but you HAVE to accept that they have the same First Amendment that you do. And so on.

    Being able to make that adaptation is the thing that makes you American. Not flags or apple pie or white people stuff. It's being able to take what you love about the place you left and adapt it to work according to the rules of the place you want to be.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Azathoth!! gets it.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Zeb is an uneducated dunce. Article IV of the Constitution clearly defines the country as being made up all of the states that apply for membership, ratifies and vows to adhere to said Constitution, and are admitted. It uses the word "union" instead of "country", but every educated person knows full well that "union" in the Constitution is synonymous with "country".

    It also clearly specifies that the country may grow via the admission of new states, but that both the admission of new states and the division of existing states into smaller ones must be consented to by Congress as well as the legislatures of the applying parties.

    And of course, the constitution is completely silent on the issue of secession from the union. I have always personally felt that this was a major oversight on the part of the Founders to not speak at all about the legality and means of secession, or the lack of legality thereof.

  • Zeb||

    No, the country is the geographical area and the people who live there. The states, the union, the government are hopefully and ideally something that makes the country function well and be peaceful and prosperous. But they are not the country. Unless by "country" you mean the political entity that governs the country. In which case we need a different word for what I am calling "the country".

  • vek||

    "*fistbump*

    I've said before, that if Texas ever left the union, I'd move there. And I'm from New Mexico. We hate Texans. ;)"

    This is all I've wanted for years! I'd move there in a hot second.

  • vek||

    Hihn, re: assimilation... I think MOST people assimilate to a decent degree. Speaking English is only ONE part of that. But it matters. However I will say that my great grandpa, and my great great grandpa were fresh off the boat from Germany AND SPOKE ENGLISH. Great great grandpas wife apparently didn't speak it well though, since she didn't work outside the home. And yes their kids spoke English and German. Nobody knocks people for being bilingual, it's the not learning English bit that irritates people.

    But back to my point, the language isn't everything. In a way you can make a strong argument that black Americans have NEVER assimilated properly into American culture. Rather they've maintained a separate parallel culture in the US. Europeans all mixed in because within a single generation of intermarrying between a Swede and an Italian you can't tell who is who or what is what.

    Using blacks as an example I think they show what happens when people don't just blend in... They maintain a stronger sense of "otherness" and that can be a problem. Modern Hispanic immigrants are showing a lot of the signs of going the black route, versus the Italian route. But there is a lot of intermarrying, so it may chill out. We'll see. But a lot of other groups are remaining very insular, and that could become a problem.

  • vek||

    But the real problem is just in sheer numbers and the speed at which they're coming in.

    If we took in 300 million Han Chinese tomorrow, do you REALLY think we would assimilate them fully? Or would they so radically reshape US that whatever came out the other side was wholly different from the USA today? Obviously they would change us as much as we changed them.

    Hence having a reasonable number of newbs at any given time is needed to maintain the culture without it being changed too dramatically. See election results over the last couple years for proof of how much these demographic changes have altered "what would have been" just recently.

    The whole political spectrum has shifted left because of immigrants. We'd probably still have a Democratic party that looked a lot like Bill Clinton in the 90s (which is to say half way moderate and sane) if we had saaay half the immigrant population we do now. They MAY convert in time, but having too many at once creates problems.

  • vek||

    On spitting anal rainbows... WHAT? I was simply using an exaggerated number to make a point that the SCALE matters. We're back at the highest foreign born numbers we've ever had, and sure enough the country is being changed by immigrants as much as we're changing the immigrants in many ways. And it's pissing people off, as should be expected.

    If we had half the number of Hispanics in the USA that we do I have little doubt that the western USA would have been changed far less, AND people would feel a lot less uneasy about mass immigration, because the effects would be far slower and more muted.

    Scale and speed matters, that's all I'm saying.

  • vek||

    The same thing is true if I take it down to the MERE 40 million immigrants we actually have.

    They have, indisputably, changed the electoral map throughout the country. When I was born in California it was a centrist state. The massive number of Hispanics, and others, have literally tilted the entire state to the left. Entire cities have been taken over and have more signs in foreign languages than English too. Not something natives tend to like, even if they tolerate it.

    NOW if we had taken in 10 million immigrants nationally, it would be LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE for such large scale changes to have happened, because there just wouldn't have been enough people to do that.

    California would still be a centrist state most likely, and the rest of the southwest wouldn't be rapidly turning blue either. TEXAS is going to be demographically overrun within probably 10 years. ZERO of that has to do with the views of native Texans changing, it has 100% to do with immigration, and to a lesser degree Shitlibs running from California.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano forgets a lot of things in his dementia-addled state.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Cy gets it. I've been saying this for decades. Socialists/progressives/fascists/communists are an existential threat to the republic.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    I don't advocate stripping anyone of their citizenship, even metaphorically, based on these views.

    What a fucking ridiculous straw man, even by your standards. Stripping people of their citizenship because of what they think is unconstitutional, illegal, and immoral, and nobody is advocating that.

    But that doesn't mean that I have to go along with your "fundamental transformation of America" either. Unlike you, I think that America is already the greatest country that ever existed in the history of civilization, and doesn't need to be "fundamentally transformed" into the kind of one party socialist feudalist state that you and your ilk love so much.

  • sarcasmic||

    What a fucking ridiculous straw man

    The irony...

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    even metaphorically

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    And, once again for those who wish to impose ideological tests on what constitutes being an "American" or not:

    If we're going to go down the road of defining who is the "real American" with ideological tests, where do we draw the line?

  • vek||

    As I said above, it is fuzzy... But somebody with IDENTICAL views to Lenin, or Hitler surely does not qualify. Do they??? Bill Clinton in the 90s, sure he's American. A dumb big government American, but American. Bernie... Closer to the edge for sure. Mao? Definitely over the line.

    So somewhere between Bernie and Mao for sure. Is that good enough?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    No commies. Or juggalos.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Socialists ARE Americans. I strongly abhor this tendency to redefine citizenship in ideological terms.

    Well, no. Not really.

    You see, that's part of the whole American Experiment.

    This is not a land based nation, or a blood based nation. It has no intrinsic codes and traditions that date back to pre-history.

    The United States of America is an experiment in trying to make a nation out of people who accept the founding ideology.

    Ideology is all it is. Everything else is contingent upon that initial 'let's all agree with this' moment.

    And socialism, in any form, was not part of that moment.

    So no, socialists are socialists. They reject the idea that is America. See?

  • perlchpr||

    ++

  • jay||

    ideological tests are not proper for government - precisely because ideological tests are important for private individuals on private forums like this. Socialism is anti american, and anti-life period. That doesn't mean i don't respect their legitimate rights like they won't with me. how do you strip someone of their citizenship - metaphorically?

  • Cy||

    "Look at what they succeeded in doing to California in the space of just one to two generations. If you don't think they could easily do the same thing to much of the rest of the country given a chance, you're kidding yourself."

    and Oregon and Washington and soon to be Texas.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Lefties have large numbers in Commifornia. They would have to migrate to other states to make an impact. Once they leave California, that state can go back to being a conservative state with 55 Electoral votes.

  • vek||

    What's fucked about being a native Californian, is that we get blamed for being horrible... A little known secret is that it WAS NOT native born Californians that turned California to shit.

    It was actually all the asshole urbanists that moved there from the east coast that ruined California, THEN after turning it to shit they and/or their children are now leaving to ruin other places. Old school native Californians very much had the frontiersman freedom thing in them. We just go flooded out by people from the east coast :(

    We moved to Washington almost 20 years ago. This state was still pretty centrist back then, and a nice place to live. Now it's gone to hell... I really want to move to Texas, but the problem is the Texas everybody has in their heads is only going to survive for another decade at best, then it's going to turn because of demographics and internal migration, and the whole country will probably be fucked electoral college wise... So Idaho it is. It will likely be the last place in the whole damn country to go full prog derp, so if Idaho falls everything will be fucked.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    A lot of native born Californians fucked that state up too. They seemed to be born from Lefties who moved from other places. Now, as you say, their children are moving to other states and fucking those places up.

    Luckily, there are not enough of them to make much difference. That is why they want illegals to tip the scale of demographics before the scale tipped back.

  • vek||

    That's an accurate way of putting it. A lot of the idiots are technically native born now, but their parents were from New York or Boston or wherever.

    Before the huge rush of people in the 60s and 70s especially, California was a lot like all the southwest states. Pretty conservative, cowboy, pretty pro freedom, individualist... Frontiersman-y like I said. Then came the flood, then their kids, and it went to hell.

    I grew up there when it was in transition still. In my moms home town in the mountains guys still drove around in pickup trucks that had GUN RACKS in them in the 90s. Apparently my home town, 35-40ish minutes north of San Francisco, was like that up through the 70s/80s when my dad grew up there. Now the culture is swung so far I can't even imagine such a thing having happened.

    That's how fast it changed. And now I've seen it happen all over again in Washington state. It sucks. Thank god liberals aren't breeding anywhere close to enough to replace themselves! I guess we have that to look forward to anyway...

  • Elias Fakaname||

    WA is getting pretty horrible. Our democrat governors get worse every time we get a new one. We even have a Marxist AG in Bob Ferguson.

  • vek||

    Yup. It makes me sad that I can't stay in this state long term... It's going to be California before too long. Which sucks, because western Washington is a great place to live. If the state was still middle of the road I'd just get out of the Seattle area and stay here, but I just know I won't be able to take the direction things are going here for long. I'd give it 5-10 years tops before it becomes unbearable to be in this state if you dislike leftist tyranny.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Therefore, their long-term strategy for some time now has been to replace the existing American population with a foreign-born population more amenable to socialism.

    Do you want to know the real reason why Hispanics tend not to vote for Republicans? Because no matter what they do, you all will never view them as being "American enough" as yourselves.

  • Cy||

    "Do you want to know the real reason why Hispanics tend not to vote for Republicans? Because no matter what they do, you all will never view them as being "American enough" as yourselves."

    Fuck off with your racist bullshit. I know a lot of conservative "Hispanics" and you know what? They don't identify as Hispanics. They identify as Americans. It's not a coincidence that people who want special treatment identify as a minority.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Like every left wing asshole, chemjeff specializes in blaming America for everything on earth, and in engaging in this specialized form of political blackmail ("give us everything we demand or we won't support you").

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    you're part of the problem, mikey

  • Zeb||

    As I say above, why aren't conservatives reaching out more to hispanic immigrants and first generation people and encouraging them to be "Americans", get away from stupid identity politics and value what has made the country so successful? They should be a great constituency; they are largely socially conservative, family oriented, hard working.

  • Cy||

    "why aren't conservatives reaching out more to hispanic immigrants and first generation people and encouraging them to be "Americans", get away from stupid identity politics and value what has made the country so successful?"

    I think they are. As I also pointed out above, those "hispanics" drop the identity politics and no longer fall into the pie charts. At the end of the day, the conservatives can make all of the great arguments in the world about freedom and lose. The other guy is standing there with hand outs, victimhood, "free" college and control of almost every University in the US.

  • vek||

    My family is part Hispanic... And conservative, or libertarian leaning. But ya know what? We've been in the USA for a long time. If you look back historically immigrants have ALWAYS been more left leaning than native born.

    FDR only got elected because of the recent immigrant vote. It takes time to convert people. Hence you don't want too many people moving in with their shitty foreign expectations on government at one time. It gets you shit like The New Deal. If we'd taken in fewer immigrants back then, we never would have got saddled with FDR, who is really the one who started the USA out down the road to becoming the shit show it is now.

    I think Hispanics CAN be converted, but they have to have been here for more than 5 minutes for that to happen. All other immigrant groups vote left too, including legal immigrants from Asia, Europe, etc and it's not like the right is going out of their way to shit talk German engineers that move here or anything! We're just more limited government minded than any other country on earth, so it makes sense EVERYBODY will be to the left of us if we're not requiring an ideological test to become a citizen.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    FDR only got elected because of the recent immigrant vote.

    You have got to be kidding me. The 1932 election was a landslide for Roosevelt. He won all but 6 states. It was not even close. It wasn't the dirty immigrants that got Roosevelt elected, it was a large majority of all Americans. EVEN IF you assume that, absent immigrants, the 5 biggest industrial states that voted for him would have swung the other way - New Jersey, Ohio, Massachusetts, Michigan, and New York (!) - Roosevelt STILL would have won.

  • vek||

    Ugh chemjeff. First, I am going off of an article I read some years ago on the subject.

    America had just started coming down from having the highest percentage of foreign born people in our history. This means we still were at the peak of 1st generation native born, which most people will concede have usually not fully assimilated.

    Electoral college is a fickle thing. You DO know how it works right? In theory somebody could win 100% of the electoral college with 50 more votes nationally nowadays... One can even win LOSING the popular vote. So that doesn't really mean shit...

    It is an accepted fact that FDR dominated the FOREIGN BORN and THEIR CHILDREN (what I actually said was "recent immigrants") vote. It was credited with helping him by even his own party at the time, just like Dems talk up the Hispanic vote now.

    Looking at the numbers on Wikipedia if recent immigrants voted 60-70%+ left like they often do now, the math actually works out almost perfectly for swinging the election in his favor with just their votes... Which is what the article I read had said.

    This is no different than saying something like "Bush Jr. would have won the popular vote easily, and had an electoral landslide, against Gore if the recent immigrant population had been half as large." That's factually correct, because recent immigrants STILL vote left of long time established Americans.

  • vek||

    So in short, it very easily could have swung the election since you only need to win by a single vote per state to get all the electors. It may have been a close election without immigrant votes, instead of a landslide for FDR, but according to the thing I read before he would have lost.

    The article I read had had real research based off exit polling, etc, and was not some crazy conspiracy theory site. I doubt I could even find it again, but you can google FDR 1932 immigrant vote and you will see the Dems themselves admitted it helped push them over the edge.

    Now realistically could FDR have changed a few bits about his campaigning and still won, and proceeded to do the exact same thing? Sure. But that's not what happened, and there are 1,000 other variables if we're talking alternate timeline shit! But supposedly, according to the numbers, FDR would have lost if there were only long time American voting in 1932.

    You may well be able to say the exact same thing about Obama or maybe even Bill Clinton. I don't know on their numbers. But 14% JUST BEING FOREIGN BORN plus their kids, when they vote 70% left, swings things a hell of a lot.

  • vek||

    Oh I know. They're a weird mix, as far as trying to fit them into the "box" in terms of American politics.

    They like bigger government... But they're anti abortion. They have strong family values... But they don't favor gun rights.

    A weird mix.

    Personally, since I'm not really much of a social conservative, I have more problems with their non social issues. Technically Black people are more socially conservative on a lot of issues than white Republicans, but that doesn't mean I like their opinions on everything else!

    Like blacks Hispanics also have their problems... Higher crime rates ARE a thing. Higher out of wedlock birth rates. Etc etc etc. They're basically between blacks and whites on most metrics. They're not massive DIRECT welfare cases, because they mostly do work hard, but because their average incomes are so low on average, recent ones are mostly a financial drain via socialized costs like roads, schools, etc.

  • vek||

    I don't know what you're getting at... But yeah, unless you're coming from Lichtenstein or something, everybody moving here comes from somewhere with a bigger government.

    Any which way, I stand by the fact that any set of immigrants from ANYWHERE in the world is going to be more left leaning than the average American.

    Some countries will probably produce more left leaning immigrants than other. Imagine how little it takes to please a Chinese born person in terms of government? Pretty damn low bar to impress them.

  • vek||

    LOL

    They're not leaving BECAUSE they have a big shitty government and they want to live in Libertopia... They're mostly moving here because we're a wealthier country, and people here have a lot higher standard of living. Period. A janitor here can buy a decent car and live in an okay house... In India they live in a shack and probably can't even afford a moped. In Mexico it's probably a real house, but a lot crappier, and a crappier car. It's self interest.

    The fact is that once they get here they still express BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION IN POLLING that they prefer a "bigger government that offers more services." Their poor ass, but big and highly interfering in their day to day lives, governments in their original countries still don't have as nice of freebies as we do here, simply because we're so much wealthier.

    In short they move here for self interest, but because they're idiots (like most people) who don't understand economics, or the value of liberty, they still proceed to want things that would make this country worse. They hold these opinions more often than native born, by their own admission. Case fucking closed.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    I like patriotic Americans who value and respect the constitution and the republic. I served in Desert Storm with many of these people, all from diverse backgrounds, including many Latinos and blacks, some of whom enlisted in part to gain full citizenship.

    Their skin color amd background made very little difference to me. All that mattered was that they were solid American soldiers who had my back when it was important.

    A soft headed fool like Jeff cannot possibly understand that.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Voluntary socialism isn't socialism.

    It's cooperativism. HUGE difference. Cooperativism is a right-wing philosophy. Each person is individually asked if the want to be a part.

    In socialism, someone with a gun says that you're a part whether you like it or not.

  • Azathoth!!||

    It's okay, Michael. Breathe.

    Tell us HOW your 'point' was 'proven'. WHY an ignorance of history is, in your 'opinion', demonstrated.

    You can do it.

  • NashTiger||

    You are really terrible at this

  • Azathoth!!||

    How am I 'ignorant' of the difference between 'voluntary socialism' and socialism when it is what I am talking about?

    People who voluntarily enter into communes with other like minded people is not the same as people being forced to surrender to state ownership.

    One is cooperativism. One is about individual choice.

    The other is not. And is, far too often, imposed with guns.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Do you not understand that socialism requires no cooperation?

    That it will be imposed upon you whether you like it or not?

    That this means that voluntary cooperation--even voluntary communalism, however much it might, from the outside, resemble 'socialism' is utterly and completely different because force is absent?

    I don't think you do, Michael.

    I don't just want the façade of liberty, Michael.

  • jay||

    ideologically socialism is still socialism, whether backed by a gun or not. It may look different from different aspects but the essentials are the same. you just may be allowed to leave.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I always forget that term (cooperativism) to counter the claim that small and limited government is a push for collectivism.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Like Jello Biafra said "you'll work harder with a gun to your back for a bowl of rice a day. Slave for soldiers til you starve and your heads skewered on a stake'.

  • Jerryskids||

    So long as anything resembling legitimate elections continue to be held

    Well, that's the problem - one side thinks we're already dealing with an illegitimate President thanks to a stolen election and therefore "by any means necessary" is completely justified. They're ignorant of the adage about when you fight a monster, be careful lest you become one. There's no way in hell you can look at Antifa, for example, and imagine that these people seriously believe they're the Good Guys, but they do, because they seriously believe the enemy they're fighting is worse than they are. (And I've actually seen somebody making the argument that they didn't start the #Resistance, the racist, obstructionist GOP and their irrational hatred and terrible mistreatment of Obama was the original Resistance so now they're just giving back to the GOP what the GOP gave them. WTF?)

  • JFree||

    Both sides think elections are illegitimate when they lose.

    And that is the inevitable long-term outcome when voters themselves rationalize voting for lesser of two evils. Because the mere act of doing that means we go along with one sides demonizing of the other. And it only takes a couple of times doing that before the other side actually becomes the worst possible evil - and when they win it is obviously an illegitimate election engineered by evil party insiders manipulating the stupid other voters.

  • vek||

    I still cannot recall a time when the right didn't accept the results of an election. Bush vs Gore maybe? Where they did a recount and decided he won? But that's not the same as an uncontested election being called illegitimate, which is something the left seems to be doing more and more.

  • vek||

    I'll give you a half point for that... But that was a pretty small chunk of the right, not the whole bloody thing like it has been with the left... AND there were some weird ass inconsistencies in that guys "official" life story that made it worthy of checking out at least. Like that lovely document from college where he SAID he was born in Kenya for instance. WTF is up with that? After looking into some of that stuff a little bit in the past I still think he definitely fudged a lot of his official bio to cover up weird shit that he just thought wouldn't go over well. Probably nothing TOO crazy though.

    Personally I always thought since he had a US citizen parent the whole thing was a moot point, like John McCain being born on a US base outside the country.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    I know people in the FBI that saw the results of the FBI investigation into candidate Obama. The investigation they perform on every major candidate for president. I was told the report was quite distrurbing. Sadly, she could not divulge the specifics.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    Joss Whedon understands entertainment far better than many of us, and what his statement says to me is that he understands the whole role of political parties in our well heeled society.

    Our government and the parties that compose it are the version of pro-wrestling all classes can get behind. This is team spirit taken to the next degree. We all know in our hearts that both parties are essentially identical. Sure, this year the goofy looking guy is making threats, but next year he'll be proposing peace and love to all. The players don't matter, it's who you are affiliated with.

    Go team!

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    ---It's time for Team Red and Team Blue to step up to that same level of maturity ---

    That's like asking the red brigades (Marxians) and the brown shirts (Trumpistas) to act with civility when dealing with each other, but in reality you want them to fight and club and throw rocks at each other so normal people (non-Marxians and non-Trumpistas) can see them at all their real splendor. Put light on truth so to speak.

  • Sevo||

    "That's like asking the red brigades (Marxians) and the brown shirts (Trumpistas)..."
    At one time, you made reasonable arguments. Seek help.

  • vek||

    Well, I'll only say this... If there are red brigades in the streets, somebody has got to stomp them into the dirt... Because if you don't, you get the USSR. Hitler may have been a bad deal overall, but Franco and Mussolini were a LOT less awful than Hitler, and a hell of a lot better than Stalin or Mao... Just sayin'.

    Not to mention the fact that the people out there getting fucked with by Antifa are mostly just run of the mill conservatives, who are probably more socially tolerant than Bill Clinton was when he was elected president! So it's really the Red Brigade fighting center-right people who aren't down with turning the USA into a socialist country... Not such a horrible lot IMO.

  • MarkLastname||

    "somebody has got to stomp them into the dirt"
    No. What has got to happen is if they block traffic or commit crimes, the police are to arrest them. That's it.

    "Hitler may have been a bad deal overall."
    That's a worrying understatement.

  • vek||

    Well, if the police did their jobs that would be what happened!

    In a lot of these major cities the police are intentionally NOT doing their jobs though. Portland has been HORRIBLE with several recent issues there. I live in Seattle, and one thing I will give the assholes around here is that the cops are VERY skilled in dealing with protests/riots. They have handled stuff well and kept order. They haven't arrested as many people as probably should be, but they do have their leanings around here still...

    Anyway, the kind of protestors that are really just vandals/rioters DO need to be arrested. But if that isn't happening, and they're physically attacking you as they keep doing at legal protests... Should you not defend yourself? Of course you should. I LOVE watching Antifa guys get beat down in videos. They deserve it. The right has almost never started it, so why feel bad?

    As for Hitler, yeah, he was a dick. Funny thing is, his evil ass may have saved the world from even more evil. The communists would have likely taken over Germany, Spain, and France had the events Hitler set into motion not happened... Can you imagine Stalin allied with Germany and France taken over by commies? That could have been worse than Hitler was... Thankfully we'll never know.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    If Antifa thugs start receiving regular beat downs they will think twice about their antics.

  • vek||

    You're soooo full of shit! Antifa came armed that day too! Bear mace, bottles filled with piss, clubs, batons, etc. Both sides knew it was going to be a shit show.

    The fact is that both sides were constantly attacking each other all day because the police were not allowed to do their jobs. I could show you hours of video of right wing guys standing there not doing anything, and then Antifa rushing them too. The "famous" black guy who got his ass kicked by an alt-right guy... Yeah, he started it. His friends were attacking the very guy a minute earlier, stole his flashlight, and then when the guy saw an opportunity he whooped his ass.

    Both sides were being dicks. Deal with it dude. Even if you want to concede EVERYBODY on the right was fascists... Fascists are no worse than communists! In reality there were decent people on both sides, and shit heads on both sides.

  • eyeroller||

    Democratic and Republican voters...despise each other

    I'm not sure how true this really is, or whether it's really gotten much worse recently.

    But it's very clear that the press is working overtime to sensationalize whatever instances they can find, and to create the narrative that everyone hates each other.

  • John||

    It is a lot less true than it appears. Social media and the major media made divisions seem deeper than they are.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I despise socialists that are Democrats. They are trying to take everything that I have, control me, and murder me when I dissent to their control.

    Maybe I'm wrong and that is what love is made of.

  • JFree||

    I'm not sure how true this really is, or whether it's really gotten much worse recently.

    My guess is that it has gotten much worse because we are resegregating where we live - by political affiliation.

    Only way to really tell would be to compare election results at the county level (a reasonable proxy for non-gerrymandered neighbors) - say for 1968, 1988, 2000, 2008, 2016 (elections with no incumbent). And see whether the number of 'close' counties has dropped over time.

  • vek||

    I know I'm segregating myself! Washington state used to be a nice centrist place... I was pretty okay with the way things ran. It was fucked, but that's government for ya. However it was way LESS fucked than lefty controlled states.

    Now it's turned into a leftist controlled state, and I can see the writing on the wall going forward. So I'm likely off to Idaho!

    The messed up thing is that if just a couple hundred thousand extra conservatives moved here, because it has such a low population, we could swing it right back. It's just been all the growth in Seattle that borked it at the state level in the last few years finally. It's too bad too, I really like western Washington.

  • vek||

    You live in Washington somewhere right? I recall reading that before. I'm in Seattle for now...

    I know Washington still isn't bad RIGHT THIS SECOND. It has been a reasonably well run and decent state. That's why we friggin' moved here almost 20 years ago.

    I'm not talking about right this second though. I'm talking about going into the future. California was a sane and centrist state when my dad grew up there too buddy!

    Seattle's growth, all leftists of course, has now tilted that near perfect balance that kept things pretty good here. After this last election, I wouldn't be surprised if the Republicans never take back the state house or senate ever again. Let alone governor.

    It's going to become a one party state like Cali. The last several years they've already started passing shitty gun laws, and other dumb excessive regulations. The state wide minimum wage of $13.50 is going to KILL the state outside of Seattle. It won't happen overnight, but over the next decade + this state is going to go to hell. Idaho won't. I like the idea of living in the Spokane area, because I can change states without upending my whole life if I feel the need to.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    WA is a disaster anymore. The shit I had to go through just to evict a tenant for my folks (had to, he got pinched for meth distribution and my folks received an official letter from the cops) was ridiculous. It's also hard as hell putting together any private land on property with a residential component anymore because of the bullshit democrat RE laws passed by Olympia.

    The over regulation of the legal pot industry is also most vexatious.

    And these assholes are salivating, waiting for their opportunity to finally saddle us with a state income tax in addition to all the other bullshit taxes we already pay.

  • vek||

    "I lived in the Tukwila suburb, 1990-2001. Now Boise."

    Ahhh. I guess I can't move to Boise now then, which was my #2 spot I had in mind! ;) We moved to San Juan Island when we first came here, and been in Ballard for 13 years. It's become unbearable the last 5 or 6 though... Almost everything I liked about the city has been demolished, and the level of leftist crazy has skyrocketed.

    "How much of that is the nationwide tribalism? If the viciousness is still missing, the current is temporary."

    Well, since you don't have boots on the ground anymore, let me tell you... It is vicious as hell. If I were to put a generic bumper sticker for ANY "conservative" position on my car there is a 100% chance my car would get keyed, tires flattened, or worse. Think 2A, lower taxes, or maybe even something like "I Believe In Absolute Freedom Of Speech." That's not an exaggeration. If it was a Trump sticker, it'd probably get a Molotov cocktail. THAT is how crazy Seattle is now.

    It didn't used to be of course. It was always left leaning, but it has gone super overboard. The taxes, the homeless problem we've created for ourselves, traffic, crime, it's ALL got way worse. I'm sure other parts of the state are less over the top, hence I don't want to be HERE anymore, but might consider Spokane.

  • vek||

    "YES. When I ran for Insurance Commissioner, Spokane rallies were my favorite. As LP Director, that county party was among my closest. Not like the crazies in N Central WA and the Idaho pan handle! (shudder)"

    I hadn't been there in a long time, but just took a trip recently. Seems pretty darn tolerable. I'd lean towards the Spokane side for now, but like that I could just bail to Post Falls or CDA if (when) Washington does something I can't take anymore.

    Elias is right. You haven't been here for a LONG time. WA WAS a very nice and sane state back in 2001. That's why we came here. But it has gone over the edge the last several years. CA used to be a nice state too, remember that!

    They've been jacking taxes, lots of new bad regulations, they've done a TON of property rights things that are horrible, gun rights have got notably worse, the statewide minimum wage will kill the state outside Seattle just for starters... A long list of bad, with basically nothing good to offset it the last several years.

    And they DO want to put in an income tax. Thanks to the state constitution it will be mighty tough to do it, but they WANT to. And at some point they probably will have the support. It's not the same place you remember Hihn, which sucks, because that was a pretty nice place. Hence I'm looking to get out.

  • John||

    Reason in 1849

    Hey Wigs and Democrats; You are stuck with each other

    Nothing about the future is certain except that it will be different from the past.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Anyone who thinks of a permanent victory is engaged in hyperbole or wishful thinking. It is a neverending struggle. That being said, holding off the authoritarian structures is important, because once they are in place, they are damned difficult to get rid of. Like it or not, due to their utopianist delusions of an infinitely malleable humanity, the Left is most likely to put forward that one more busybody law, one stifling regulation, one omnipotent agency will solve our problems and usher in the golden age.

    That must be opposed, continuously.

  • John||

    Sadly, you are dead on Mickey. Socialism will never die. It is just a modern reformulation of tribalism. Think about what tribalism is. It is a system where all of the benefits of your labor go to the tribe and in return, the tribe provides for all of your needs. That is socialism in a nutshell. People are naturally tribal. And in dangerous enough situations, tribalism is the only way to survive. For example, there is no more tribal or socialist culture than an Army. This is because it has to be. Individualism and freedom outside a set framework will get everyone killed in that situation.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    All you can do is keep socialism sidelined and teach kids about how horrible Socialism has been throughout history.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Yep. And since socialism, in some sense, reflects a necessary core of family and tribal behavior, people have to learn and make the effort to keep socialism out of broader social relations.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its easy. Socialism is the worst of human nature.

    Some of us dont even have that. I never want to enslave anyone, ever.

  • sarcasmic||

    Socialism is the worst of human nature.

    Socialism is the road to hell paved with good intentions.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    How are they good intentions when you want to use a gun to force someone into a ditch to die?

    Socialists twist good things like helping people into what they think are good things like taking everything and giving to lazy people.

  • Mickey Rat||

    No it is not. It just does not scale up past the number of people you can know very well at one time. Like a circle of family and friends. Trying to make it work on a society where most people are strangers to each other is where it goes wrong.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    No, it fails when it becomes compulsory, backed by deadly force.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "Gonna beat you and defeat you—there's a pretty lousy pop song in there. But what those words don't offer is is a recipe for maintaining a free and functioning democratic political system. Because, in the real world, wins and defeats are temporary, and the next turnabout is only a political cycle away. That is, we're all going to be living with each other for a long time to come."

    What you're missing is that this is not the view of the left. They envision a point at which they take power, and then make sure that nobody can take it back from them.

    In the words of Turkey's new dictator for life, "Democracy is like a train. You get off when you reach your destination." That's how the left views the matter.

    Should they get power, they'll attempt to pull it off. It's a serious mistake to not take them seriously when they talk about packing the court, repealing the 1st amendment, and so forth.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Yeah yeah. Keep beating that tribalism drum. It's easier than thinking.

    "I don't want to think critically about the ideas of the other side, I will just label them with the big bogeyman label of THE LEFT and call them Hitler"

  • Elias Fakaname||

    "Yeah yeah. Keep beating that tribalism drum. It's easier than thinking."

    Jeff, I've read all kinds about of books written by various leftists on socialist theory, Marxism, etc.. I also read up on the policy positions of leftists att various levels of government. Based on your comments, clearly to a far, far greater degree than you can claim.

    The reason I despise them so much isn't from tribalism, it's from reading their villainous plans in their own words. The same reason I call you a dummy. I actually pay attention to the nonsense you write.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    It's a serious mistake to not take them seriously when they talk about packing the court, repealing the 1st amendment, and so forth.

    Here's the problem: YOU'RE not talking them seriously when they talk about packing the court, repealing the 1st amendment, etc. You caricature and hyperbolize the argument into hysterics about how they are indistinguishable from Stalinist dictators.

    If you are against court-packing, maybe you should start by actually arguing against the merits of court-packing. Instead all you seem to be arguing is "I don't like court-packing because Democrats are proposing it". Which is not principled and is part of the problem that divides us.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    When it comes specifically to court-packing, I don't have any particular reason to favor 9 SCOTUS judges instead of 11 or 7 or 13 or whatever. In the past, the size of the court fluctuated quite a bit. It's only been set at 9 for about a century. It's probably better mathematically that the court be composed of an odd number of judges but that's about all.

    I don't think it should be 1 or 3, because then you really would have a dictatorial or triumvirate system. I don't think it should be absurdly large because then it really does just become another legislature. But I have no reason to think 9 is objectively better than 7 or 11. Do you?

  • sarcasmic||

    "Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
    Seven for the Dwarf-lords in halls of stone,
    Nine for Mortal Men, doomed to die,
    One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
    In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
    One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
    One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
    In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie."

  • John||

    So you claim Brett is wrong to claim the Progs want to pack the court but then you turn around and say how you think packing the court is a good idea.

    You really don't understand how this works do you?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I did not say "packing the court is a good idea".

  • MarkLastname||

    It's not that 9 is the magic number. You're missing the point. The point is that the number is fixed. You don't just get to add more until you have a majority once you're in power - which is what court packing is.

    What's special about the number 7? Nothing. So why is the World Series best of 7? What if a team kept losing, and after losing 4 games they said, "no, we've decided it's best of 9," then lost again and said, "alright, now it's best of 11." The arbitrariness of the number 7 doesn't make their behavior any less absurd and unfair.

  • vek||

    THIS.

  • NashTiger||

    Yes as opposed to all the other times the Republicans advocated packing the court and repealing the Bill of Rights and he said nothing. You really got him

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Exactly Brett. Notice who is replying on your comment and what they are advocating.

    Libertarianism is a way to destroy socialism too so it must be undermined from the inside out.

    Its funny when the anarchists open their mouth on here because you can see they just want everything to burn. From the ashes an anarchist-land will arise!

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Anarchy doesn't have to be destructive, but "anarchist" has been appropriated by dysfunctional bolsheviks. Ideally it's not an absolute. A little anarchy is probably a good thing.

  • Zeb||

    Anarchy can be a political ideology (or a number of quite varied political ideologies), or it can be a philosophical orientation towards the world. I like the idea of "rational anarchism", where the individual is the only moral agent, no state action is justified where individual action would not be and everyone is free to judge the validity of laws and states for themselves and obey those laws or not as they see fit, accepting the consequences of their actions.
    I don't think anarchy as envisioned by an-caps or more collectivist anarchists is an achievable state of affairs. But I think it is reality in the sense described above. The individual is free and the state is just a collection of individuals who are responsible for their own actions.

  • Azathoth!!||

    An-cap are authoritarians. They say we have no right to form a voluntary government.

    Except they don't. They say that any association, of any type, governmental or not, HAS to be voluntary.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Ah, they want every individuals consent--you say individuals consent can be overridden but they are the 'authoritarians'.

    See?

  • perlchpr||

    Yeah, Hihn's a delusional moron. It's a wonder he can even use a keyboard.

  • MarkLastname||

    "One man can overrule 350 million Americans. That's authoritarian."
    No, it isn't. It's called self-ownership. On the question of whether I ought to be hanged for not going to mass on Sunday or not singing La Marseillaise on May Day, I absolutely should be able to overrule every fucking one of the other 350 million Americans.

    You, Michael, are the authoritarian. Your implicit position is that we are all the property of the majority, and that are freedoms can be justly revoked if the majority will it, while insisting that to resist the will of the majority is authoritarian. You're are 100% backwards.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "An-cap are authoritarians. They say we have no right to form a voluntary government."

    Oh, great. Illustrating your anti-knowledge concerning yet another topic.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Anarchy does not have to be destructive. Human nature and the desire to pack up into groups then brings new issues.

    If everyone worked hard and there were never any strong men bullies, anarchy would work fine. Like socialism, it works against human nature.

    Capitalism in a free market and a free state, rewards those who work hard and does not reward those that do not work hard.

  • sarcasmic||

    Says the guy who supports merchantilism.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I support free trade. You cannot have free trade if both parties are not on board.

    Pressuring trading partners to drop trade restrictions is a way to accomplish free trade.

  • vek||

    I suppose you've never run a business then huh Hihn? Pressure sometimes has to be applied in negotiating.

    You have to use carrots and sticks dude... Since past administrations already gave away our carrot in the trade debate, access to our market, we have to resort to taking the carrot back from them... And also offering a stick. If we'd had decent negotiators in the past it would have never had to get nasty, but you can't let a mistake stand forever.

  • vek||

    1) How would you know
    2) Win-win is the very heart of free-market exchange.
    3) Which is why Trump is an authoritarian fascist..
    4) If it's not a good deal ... WALK AWAY

    1. Because I own multiple businesses right now, and have had others in the past. Not to mention I've done sales jobs! Sometimes you have to turn the heat up.
    2. Win win IS the best way... The problem enters when the other side refuses to negotiate a fair deal. There are lots of unreasonable people in the world... What do you do then? Skip to 4...
    3. Whatever...
    4. How do you do that when you've been locked into bad deals in the past? You have to threaten to pull out, which he has done with some things, like NAFTA. He's also offered carrots, in the form of 0% across the board tariffs to the EU etc... Which they promptly DENIED, showing they don't want to negotiate a fair deal or in good faith... So when dealing with shitty people, you may have to bust out the stick.

    That's all their is to it. Sometimes you have to turn up the pressure. Not everybody in the world is a rational person, or wants to be fair. If you HAVE to deal with such a person, you might have to get tough.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Vek, you're wasting your time with pseudoHihn.

  • vek||

    "Fair to YOU?"

    Fair, as it is generally understood, means fair to all parties. It's not an exact science, but people tend to be able to suss it out. If a car is worth $10K, selling it to somebody for $20K would be unfair to them. Selling it to them for $2K would be unfair to you. But perhaps anywhere between $9-11K might be "fair" enough for both sides. Right?

    "An agreement is NOT a commitment. Why deal with anyone you KNOW has no commitment to you?"

    The problem is that you're trying to apply BUSINESS deal principles to non business scenarios. I agree 100% that in a business deal you don't want to go in if the other side is not committed. However with these trade situations we HAVE to deal with them. The alternative is to embargo them, which people would (rightly) scream about even more. Therefore you have to hammer out the best thing you can, and if you have the upper hand like we do, when being forced to deal with a shitty country, you might need to apply pressure. THEY want to get the best thing they can for their side, and if they're unreasonable all you can do is turn up the heat.

    "If they were bad for you .. that's YOUR fault!"

    That's all anybody has been saying! Past deals were negotiated poorly long before Trump was ever around... And he wants to do better by getting trading partners to eliminate their barriers. How is that bad for the USA or free trade in general? Clinton could have made China open up fully, but didn't. We should fix that.

  • vek||

    With respect to NATO, he isn't demanding they spend what we do... He's demanding they spend what they AGREED to spend, which is way less per their GDP than we do. We DO carry the most weight in terms of military, and many of our allies under spend knowing we'll be there to save their asses. That they should AT LEAST live up to agreements they made in the past is not unreasonable.

    I DON'T think he goes about specifics the best way. He's a little too crazy IMO, but it's better than being a total roll over like past admins.

    "That's a DEMAND, not a carrot, unless they were already committed to free trade."

    It's both. We DO have restrictions on some of their stuff. Ours are lower than theirs are on our products, so we have more to gain, but that's due to bad past deals. But their companies would still benefit from still fewer restrictions on our end. To reasonable people it would be fair... But they presently have a situation slanted in their favor, and of course don't want to give it up. But we have to at least try to force them to, which we could if Trump wanted to get really rough, because we ultimately have the leverage.

    "...plays win-lose ONLY. Submission is not a deal"

    When somebody is already fucking you over, what exactly do you have to lose by twisting their arm a bit? Past admins gave up our best bargaining chips, so Trump HAS TO threaten to take away the goodies in order to bring them to the table. This is not his fault, it's past negotiators fault.

  • vek||

    "Fair to who? You really don't see it, do you?"

    Again, fair is fair for both... Taking away a slanted privilege somebody has is not unfair either, it's just setting things right. Sometimes spoiled kids can't stand it when you take away an unearned privilege, or a sucker they grabbed and shouldn't have had in the first place... But that doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.

    "Anyone who disagrees with you is ... SHITTTY"

    Oi. People who are unfair and unreasonable are kinda shitty people. I get why China or the EU countries LIKE having agreements that are slanted in their favor... It's good for their nations! But when somebody comes to the table and says "Look guys, this is waaay slanted in your favor. Let's just do a reasonable deal." And they freak out like you're trying to murder them, and then start insulting you for making a reasonable proposal... That's kinda shitty.

    "Are all your "businesses" actual businesses, with employees … or just self-employed, like a paperboy? BIG difference."

    I have employees. I have fewer now than I did 12 years ago with a different business though. I have actually been doing quite well recently and am thinking I'm going to see some pretty awesome growth with one of my businesses that started out as a hobby thing a few years back. 10+ years ago I had a modest 23ish employees at my peak though. I'm no Bill Gates or anything, but I make decent money, and surely prefer my life to working in a corporate cubicle like most people!

  • sarcasmic||

    Democracy has spoken. Settled law. Etc.

    Once the left gets their way the game is over.

  • Azathoth!!||

    The 'left' and the 'right' will both give way to structures more in line with those envisioned by the American 'founding fathers'.

    The attempt to utilize human nature rather than endlessly thwart it that is at the core of the founding philosophies will be the basis for upcoming political thought.

    People tend to forget that the American 'left' and 'right' are not the European 'left' and 'right'. That they stem from different sources. That Europe is trying to reconcile the American experiment with millennia of autocracy in the home of that autocracy. It is this that is at the core of their 'left' and 'right'.

    Interestingly, while the American right tends to fight the European right, the American left has been subsumed by it.

    This will, in the short term, have the appearance of the 'right' winning out over the 'left', but as it spreads to incorporate monotheistic faiths and other monomaniacal dogmas the old 'right' will begin to feel embattled as well and attempt to fuse with the old left in an odd form of conservatism.

    For those who've been wanting to 'take back' the term 'liberal', well, you're going to get your wish because 'liberal' is what the first fumbling steps of this will call itself. For a bit.

  • Azathoth!!||

    No one is talking about people, Michael. Those of us who CAN think are talking about ideas The founding fathers were only mentioned as the source of some of the ideas we're talking about.

    No one is saying anyone or anything's perfect or inviolable. Calm down, breathe deep. You'll be fine.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Michael, you are not talking about anything I've mentioned.

    I was speaking of the nature of the right and left, the difference between the American and European versions, why the ideas that gave rise to the American experiment will be the ones that win the day--and why this will appear, at first to be a victory for the 'right' only to become established as the birth of a new, more liberty centered and individualistic thing and not a victory for the right at all.

    I am actually saying that, in the future, adhering to the notion of 'consent of the governed' will be much more valued and important than it is today.

    So your outburst is utterly unfounded.

  • MarkLastname||

    Really? The constitution hasn't been amended in the last 230 years?

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Pace Whedon—who seems to have forgotten his insights with regard to his series Firefly

    I wonder how much of the more libertarian-ish sensibilities from Firefly were really coming from Whedon vs how much of that was Tim Minear's influence? Or has Whedon just become more and more progressive over the years? It's hard to envision the current Joss Whedon writing something like this.

  • SusanM||

    It could be possible that because the series was so short, you're actually thinking of what the show might have been? Who's to say where Whedon was taking the overall arc?

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Whedon went full retard. Apparently nobody told him you never go full retard. It's probably not long until he falls foul of the vanguard and can't keep ahead of the wavefront.

  • Brandybuck||

    ""This, Tuccille point outs, is something libertarians learned a long time ago. It's time for Team Red and Team Blue to step up to that same level of maturity.""

    WTF? Apparently Tuccille has never been to the smoke filled halls of a Liberterian Party convention to witness first hand that level of maturity. As the old saying goes, the lower the stakes the nastier the politics, and the LP demonstrates this to a tee.

  • Zeb||

    I don't think the LP is really representative of libertarians.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Some Libertarians, lots of anarchists, lots of Lefties, and some non-religious Republicans.

  • Mickey Rat||

    I guess Tuccille did not read the article on the Libertarian convention fights last week.

    Being an oultlying third party means your dirty laundry does not get covered much, not that it does not exist.

  • Mickey Rat||

    The same goes. Any political interest group that gets anywhere near being a real player is going to start acting like the established groups, sooner or later. If you think your group is the exception, you are a pollyanna.

  • Mickey Rat||

    That "whooshing" sound was the point going by your head.

  • Duelles||

    The socialists, the hate America crowd are not worth loving except that they inspire others to work to preserve the liberty we know and cherish. The sense of history gets distorted by some infantile idealism of the future. Countries of people have done horrific things to each other and to others, no question. By to deride America for past misdeeds and atrocities misses the point that we are always getting better and will always fall short of any cumbayah way of life. We all are not born equal, live equal or strive equally, but we all have the same opportunity to succeed or fail. Some deciders just can't stomach the idea of failure which makes them failures from the getgo. So we are divided. Mass education and top down control of curriculum sucks. Parents who are lazy for the 1st 5 years of their children's lives perpetuate ignorant, entitled morons. Seems we are stuck with that. So. . . .how do we personally make some money off of all this and survive no matter what?

  • MarkLastname||

    "You do NOT choose for me."
    But if he and 350 million Americans choose for you, do you think it's your right to overrule them? If so, then aren't you, to paraphrase you, a "RIGHT WING GOOBER PAULIST AUTHORITARIAN BULLY!!!!?"

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Its not just rage, or acting out to express rage. That is just one manifestation of a broader childish or even infantile level of thinking and discourse. For children, most values are absolute, and the easiest morality is good and evil. And, of course, assigning themselves to "good", and anyone who disagrees as "evil".

    Maybe (likely?) people have always been this way. But abetted by the twin scourges of modern marketing and manipulated technology, most people gave up independent adult thought and fully embraced the brand. This is Coke vs. Pepsi on the national stage. And like Coke vs. Pepsi, most advocates cannot tell the difference in blind tests, and cannot explain their choice in any rational way.

  • NashTiger||

    Coke vs. Pepsi,

    That may have been the case in George Wallace's day, but if you can't distinguish the taste of what is being peddled by Fauxcahontas Warren/ Kamala Harris Democrats from Cocaine Mitch on his worst day, you don't deserve a seat at the table

  • Earth Skeptic||

    My point is that for most people any political analysis and decision making is no deeper than Coke vs. Pepsi, as intended by the major parties, their consultants, branding experts, and advertisers, and other vested interests.

    But I agree that these sheeple do not deserve a seat at the adult table (or in the voting booth). THAT is the fundamental flaw of broad democracy.

  • vek||

    YUP. Universal suffrage was a HORRIBLE idea.

    Restricting it to white, male, landowners by the founders was their proxy for somebody who was likely to be somewhat educated and not a blow it case.

    Personally I think a history test, civics test, and maybe just an outright IQ test would be awesome requirements. There are smart and educated people on the left and right... At least the smart ones would probably have more nuanced and sane things to discuss, hence politicians would cater to the new more limited voting groups. Having to appeal to idiots with 85 IQs to get their vote is half the problem with where politics has gone. You can't discuss the nuance of ANYTHING with most low IQ, uneducated morons.

  • HGW xx/7||

    I think the pic for this piece says it all: conservatives can be annoyingly "patriotic" and act like post-menopausal coots; while progs go goose stepping in the streets, waving socialist banners, and demanding the abolition of individual rights and the capitalist system "or else".

    Yeah, they are totally on par and equal threats.

  • NashTiger||

    Out at "same non-violent strategy as Marxists".

    Murdering 100s of Millions? That's your example of non-violent strategy?

    And for God's sake, stop with the idiotic catchphrases that only make sense to yourself.s parody accounts go, OBL's is much more cogent and understandable

  • Azathoth!!||

    Michael, the fact that the words come from J.D. father undermine everything you're saying.

    No libertarian--no person who has any regard for liberty who's lived through the last 50 years could ever say this--

    ""Libertarians often use the same non-violent strategy as Marxists, because it's there."

    Because there is no non-violent Marxist strategy. And no person who values liberty could ever think that there was.

    The only people who claim that there is are the progressive scum who act as a distractor left wing violence and destruction.

    The same people you defend.

  • NashTiger||

    We just haven't tried the right kind of Marxist Revolution yet. It will be as bloodless as the next Caliphate taking over the planet

  • Azathoth!!||

    "Klavern"?

    Michael, you're reading Reason--R-E-A-S-O-N.

    Can you see it?

    No one has mentioned anything about the prototypical leftist terror group. Why are you bringing them up? To highlight the leftist violence you so love to defend?

  • Azathoth!!||

    PROTO-typical, Michael. Not 'typical'.

    Though I DO agree that the alt-right IS a typical leftist terror group.

    But the prototype was the KKK.

  • vek||

    The fact is that the USA is POTENTIALLY only one major catalyzing event from shit really going down. Things could fizzle out like the trouble of the 1960s/70s, or it could go more like the 1860s... Only time will tell.

    I still say the best way to deal with this is split the country up. We're a HUGE country in terms of land and population. You don't need to be a massive country to make a good life for your citizens. If we can't convince the leftists to just move to all the other leftists countries in the world, then give them their own chunk of land. I'd say give them most of the west coast and be done with them.

    That way they get to ruin their new country without annoying the rest of the country. People would self sort to their preferred version of America by the millions, and everybody would get something a lot closer to what they want.

    It's win win. If that doesn't happen things will either fizzle, or we'll have civil war. I lean towards fizzle, but that's not a 100% thing. Personally I think the hard left will burn itself out, and we'll shift a bit to the right in coming years. The left just got too crazy on a lot of stuff for centrists to stomach. That may end up being a couple decade cycle. We'll see...

  • HGW xx/7||

    This x1000. Been saying this for years.

  • vek||

    It is the sane, rational, peaceful solution. Czechoslovakia wasn't working, they were at each others throats constantly... But as the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic they're actually friendly and cooperative nations with each other. We deal with our massively more socialist friends to the north in Canada just fine, so no reason we couldn't deal with the new Peoples Republic Of America or whatever.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I think we are a grain of sand away from tipping the scale too.

    Trump was voted as the last ditch effort to stave this off. Americans have had enough of Lefty bullshit.

    He is only one guy and Congress is unwilling to roll back much government. Hopefully a Libertarian-ish presdiential candidate runs in 2024 after Trump's two terms and continues where Trump left off.

    Trump also shows Americans that you don't have to take Lefty bullshit anymore. Its okay to fight back and roll back socialism.

  • vek||

    Yup. If we have just ONE event that is crazy enough, it could spill out into mass scale riots, which then leads to outright revolt, and full on civil war. Imagine something like Trump being assassinated by a Bernie Bro or something. Or some ACTUAL Neo Nazi guy shooting 500 people at some lefty event. It could be a lot of things if the timing is just right.

    Trump was viewed as the last chance to save what America used to be. And I think he may be. He's definitely not making enough headway to fix things properly all on his own, but he has stopped things from getting worse. Somebody comparably good, or even better than him, continuing where he left off would be awesome... But we'll see.

    The best thing he has done so far is in fact showing people we don't have to be quiet and STFU and take whatever BS the left throws at us though. That will probably be the one thing that sticks whatever happens in the future!

  • Lester224||

    The coasts can join Canada and the middle can become 'Jesusland'. I don't think you could convince Norway and Sweden to take all the east coast liberals nor would they all agree to move to California. The cities in the middle won't like 'Jesusland', though and there would be an immense brain drain from anyone who could afford to leave there.

  • Mark22||

    The cities in the middle won't like 'Jesusland', though and there would be an immense brain drain from anyone who could afford to leave there.

    If you look at history over the last couple of centuries, you'll see that smart people move out of leftist shitholes, whether it's the Soviet Union, Cuba, or Venezuela.

  • MarkLastname||

    That must be why there's net migration from California to Texas (or from coastal blue states to inland red states).

  • vek||

    You're over AND under thinking it.

    Personally, I would say we should give California, Oregon, and Washington up. It's "more fair" so it will be taken as a more serious offer. The only caveat, is we should secure either a sliver of US soil that gives us the ability to build out a new west coast port. This could be in northern Washington, or perhaps southern Cali. We could also split Oregon/Washington east/west, because that's where the natural political line is anyway. But give them the inland conservative parts too if we must. Shit, give 'em some of the southwest too if we need to... Do whatever we have to to get the deal done and be rid of them!

    The self sorting would be by the many millions over time, but it wouldn't be EVERYBODY who thinks a certain way. Not everybody is a zealot, so lots of centrists might stay wherever they are. And midwest Democrats are an entirely different breed from the coastal sorts, even today, so many would probably stay. Both countries would likely end up with plenty of people from the other side still, this would just shift their political center a good amount. We're already self sorting in this way anyway, so whatevs. This would just make national representation better for both sets of zealots.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    I would rather force every single progtard out of this country than give them one square inch of American soil. Which would also put a hostile Marxist state on our borders.

    Let them all go to Venezuela, or wherever.

  • vek||

    I don't think every person with a college degree would bail the midwest, because they're not all shit libs! But even if they did a lot of conservatives that are smart would be bailing out of LA/SF/Seattle too. It would probably all balance itself out just fine. The wealth disparity between the coasts and the rest of the country is greatly overblown too. The midwest and south actually have the highest standard of living after adjusting for cost of living in the country... So we'd be fine on that front as well.

    Give anybody who was a citizen at the time of the split 10 years to move or whatever with no denials, after that they'd have to apply by whatever rules each country wanted to have.

    Fact is both countries would be plenty large enough to do very well for themselves on the world stage. The rest of the country doesn't NEED the west coast, and they don't NEED us either. It's been convenient to be this huge country, but we don't NEED to be to do fine.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Serious question: can we devise a system where people can divide into separate nations and still inhabit the same geographic area? Maybe a system where everyone has to abide a set of fundamental laws, but beyond that they are free to impose additional laws and policies that apply only to their group?

  • Nardz||

    Unfortunately, no.
    Progressivism is necessarily totalitarian.
    For example, environmental regs.
    Progressives want an environmental law, like only electric cars allowed. In your system (which I like in theory), non-progressives say, "cool, your rules in your area." But progressives will not tolerate gas cars being driven anywhere, so they'll have to reject that system.

  • vek||

    It's one of those silly theoretical things people have thought up before. I've read some rants about the concept... It just can't ever possibly work in the real world.

  • vek||

    Uhhh, maybe? But I'm not quite seeing it yet man.

    You're a lot older than me, so you may be dead before shit completely falls apart, but I won't be... I just don't see any of the major fundamental issues we have getting taken care of right now, or anytime in the near future.

    If I were made Dictator (in the original Roman meaning) of the USA for 8 years, I could probably straighten things out... But that's not how our system works. So we're either going to remain dysfunctional until it falls apart, OR one side or another will try to pull "a coup" and go totalitarian style and force their will on everybody else, or we'll just have a civil war. The BEST case scenario is things just falling apart IMO...

    I don't see the one where we get back on track with protecting the important rights that make America great, get the national debt under control, fix immigration and the tensions that creates, etc etc etc. There are too many major problems that nothing is being done on.

    But I'll HOPE you're right Hihn.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    I agree we're not putting the US back together again. The truth is that the country went over the cliff financially during the Bush (the younger) administration, and we're just fighting over who will be in control when we hit bottom.

    I suppose it does make some difference, because if the Democrats are in control when we hit the rubble at the bottom of the cliff, they'll have a tailor made opportunity to go full Venezuela. While if somebody else is in control, we might drag our broken body off the talus pile, and eventually recover.

    But barring the sort of black swan development that could totally transform things, (Molecular nanotech based replicators, say.) the country is going down the tubes sooner or later.

  • vek||

    Pretty much my general opinion. People seem to often be too stupid to avoid easily avoidable problems, they just wait for things to blow up in their faces.

  • vek||

    I have lots of solutions to lots of problems... The BIG problem is that the things I feel VERY confident would greatly improve the country would be fought tooth and nail by 30% of the nation, and slightly disliked by another 20%.

    That's the problem. Neither side can really govern properly because half the country wants the exact opposite that the other half wants.

    Socialists COULD jack taxes sky high, slow the economic growth, have a slightly higher unemployment rate... AKA be Europe, and probably balance the budget in this way.

    Alternatively the right could gut socialist welfare programs, eliminate other useless programs, have high GDP growth, and ultra low unemployment, and ALSO balance the budget.

    Totally different ways of running a country, but they both "work" in a way, but have totally different end results.

    Middle of the road with neither side being able to govern has left us with a perfect mishmash of low taxes AND high spending, and shitty middle of the road approaches that often work less well than either extreme might. Hence secession is awesome.

  • vek||

    I don't have ANY supporters, because I'm not a politician. But a good 50% or so of the country would probably be stoked on my policy positions if I ever laid them out.

    That's why I said disliked by 30% of the nation, the "hard left", and the 20% would be center left people who would only slightly dislike stuff I'd propose. You can say the hard left is only 20% instead of 30%, but it's still about the same dif.

    I'm all for somebody that's fiscally conservative and socially liberal... That's all I've hoped for since I started paying attention to politics... The problem is those types of candidates never get through the primaries in either of the major parties, and running 3rd party is unfortunately still a joke at this point. Perot only pulled off his deal because he was a billionaire. I'm pretty sure it would take another billionaire to make any headway that direction again.

    So we're just stuck with the choice between a douche and a turd sandwich for now...

  • Elias Fakaname||

    It doesn't have to go down the tubes. Not if we find the strength to cleanse America of its progressives.

    Kick them all to the curb.

  • vek||

    Yes societies change... But it's not always for the best, and it's not always peaceful. I guess my point is I see a violent and/or undesirable change as being more realistically likely than everything chilling out and becoming hunky dory.

  • vek||

    I never said both weren't possible. It's a matter of how LIKELY I see things being. I think bad shit is more likely right now. Things COULD change. Things can always change! But I also don't see them being likely to change in a good direction.

    Time will tell Hihn!

  • Azathoth!!||

    That way they get to ruin their new country without annoying the rest of the country

    This is not how they operate. There can BE no outside to their State. If there is, people will flee to anywhere else--as they do now.

    Therefore no one must be allowed to escape.

  • vek||

    Well, that's their problem. I'd be fine with California building a wall to keep their citizens IN after the split! Anybody who didn't move right away deserves whatever they get!

  • Ron||

    Democratic and Republican voters...despise each other,"

    let me rephrase Democrat politicians and tv personalities hate everyone who disagrees with them and often threaten to silence and even jail them, I don't see the right doing that

  • CE||

    Not stuck if you let California secede.

  • MarkLastname||

    Self-determination is authoritarian? Freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength?

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Hihn is trolling these comments hard. He always seems to try throwing as much obtuse wall-of-text nonsense at comments threads as possible in an effort to make them more of a chore to read through. His mission (after apple school) is to disrupt and/or prevent any discourse he doesn't have complete control over.

  • perlchpr||

    Yeah, he's actually even more annoying than Tony. Tony is essentially always wrong, and oftentimes infuriating, but I can at least stand to read his comments. I see Hihn's name and just scroll right past.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Hihn reminds me of Wimp Lo, that idiot the school had trained to think bruising somebody's fist with your face was how you won a fight. He persuades literally nobody, but thinks he's winning every argument.

  • Procyon Rotor||

    You have a bizarre definition of ignore, Hihn. I'll give you a hint, it doesn't mean to rant at someone all day in bold font, and then make a sad, self-aggrandizing website about how you defeated them.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano linking to his own retarded ravings.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano own-goals himself again.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Pseudo Hihn is just an annoying bad joke. We should get him banned once and for all, as he is such an annoyance.

  • vek||

    Every time you type smirk, I get an image of the Grinch in my mind...

  • vek||

    LOL What's wrong with the Grinch Hihn? He ended up being a good guy in the end, so who is to say it is an attack??? I'm just tellin' you what I see in my head when I read your posts...

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Goobers make terrible bait! The fish never go for them, and it's such a waste of perfectly good candy.

  • Thomas O.||

    "Gonna beat you and defeat you—there's a pretty lousy pop song in there."

    Or a pretty good hip-hop song.

  • vek||

    All you gotta do is throw a "BITCH" at the end of that, and it's all the lyrics you need!

  • Mark22||

    You only need to look to California to see that progressives are both willing and capable of destroying conservatives and libertarians. How do they do it? By throwing a few million voters into poverty and government dependence. Other examples are Venezuela and Cuba.

    And, no, people are not "stuck with each other". When leftists take over, conservatives and libertarians leave.

  • Mark22||

    Indeed, "zero" is an apt description of you.

  • vek||

    The big problem we have now though Mark, is there is nowhere to go! I know we discussed this briefly in another thread, but there really isn't any major country on earth that's even close to as good as the USA is still.

    If Australia went hardcore on freedom, I'd move there ASAP. The problem Americans have is that we kind of have to fight for this place, because it's the last bastion of anything remotely free on earth. If you're just going to move to Europe, you might as well just stay here, because the USA won't likely become worse than the UK or Germany any time soon...

  • Mark22||

    The fact that you think Canada is more libertarian than the US is just another indication of how fake your libertarianism actually is.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Your snark and boldface is because you're a weak little bitch who can't stop shitting his pants.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks shitting his pants is proving someone a liar.

  • vek||

    I will say that I fully believe it is possible for any PARTICULAR person/business to potentially be better off economically in some other countries, just because the weird quirks different nations have in tax rules/regulations. Situations vary by person and quirks.

    That said, I've always found the big lists to be a bit off IMO. They often list European countries where you can be thrown in prison for speech as having more personal freedom than we do! Which is BS. This makes me distrust their economic rankings too, and wonder how they're cooking up the info... Especially since most Euro countries spend more as a percentage of GDP on government.

    On the economic front, there are definitely micro countries that are FAR better than the USA. When you get to decent sized countries, I have my doubts. Especially since it varies a lot within the US by state. Is it Canada versus NYC resident, or Houston resident???

    You say without healthcare Canada has a smaller government than the US... I'm not going to check this, I'll take your word for it. Maybe Canada is the magic country! They surely don't spend money on military stuff like we do, so that could be the difference right there. How much do their provinces tend to tax people though? How is that worked in? It's a lot less straight forward process to REALLY figure it out IMO.

    I know in most European countries their welfare states are financed off of higher middle class taxes, many with even lower corporate tax rates than the US!

  • vek||

    Maybe if you're a $40,000 a year dude the UK or Canada works out slightly better because you're getting free shitty healthcare paid by the $150K a year guy, and otherwise similar tax rates to the US... But what if you're the $150K a year guy? How about $75K guy? It all varies so much you really just have to figure out YOUR particular situation.

    Not to even bring up the fact that the average income in the USA is higher than most other 1st world countries, even for similar jobs. So even with lower tax rates, your take home pay and what it actually buys would probably be considerably less. Then there are things they tax to discourage like car ownership. There's a reason Americans live in bigger houses and have more/bigger cars, things I consider desirable.

    But as you said, it's not all just taxes/money. I COULD NOT live in a country where I could be thrown in prison for my speech. I just couldn't take that shit as a matter of principle. Same on many other freedoms Americans take for granted.

    If I had to in a pinch, if the USA and only the USA was really falling apart and I didn't want to stay to try to put it back together, I could run away to Australia or Canada or something... But I would hate every minute of it because of all the non financial stuff, even if I was about the same financially.

    For ME there is no large country on earth even close to as good as the USA. Just a few micro countries, that also have downsides with gun rights etc in most cases.

  • vek||

    LOL

    Uhhh, ok. I just threw out a combo of a few facts, and then my opinions on some stuff...

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano snarks about 2A protections while pimping gun bans.

  • ranrod||

    dont get me started on election/vote fraud...

    of thats right... if it exsts its only minimal... bull****

  • pffts||

    Gimme a break with this nice guy libertarian from the 90s BS.

  • agen bola terpercaya||

    this is a good news. daftar sbobet

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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