Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Is a Company’s Choice To Go Vegetarian Really ‘Every Libertarian’s Nightmare’?

WeWork's efforts to influence employee behavior might rate as stupid, but they're not tyranny

Kris Tripplaar/Sipa USA/NewscomKris Tripplaar/Sipa USA/NewscomWeWork has gone (mostly) vegetarian. The company, which provides shared office spaces and similar services across the United States and in nearly two-dozen countries, announced last month it was pulling its food dollars out of most meat.

"The company will no longer serve red meat, pork[,] or poultry at company functions, and it will not reimburse employees who want to order a hamburger during a lunch meeting," the New York Times reported. The ban doesn't apply—for now at least—to "seafood, eggs, dairy and alcohol."

A company spokesman says the move has to do with a range of factors—from environmental concerns to animal welfare.

To be clear, WeWork isn't banning its employees from eating meat. Rather, the company will no longer buy meat or reimburse its employees for work meals that contain the forbidden meats. Employees are still free to eat meat on their own dime and, certainly, on their own time.

WeWork's policy doesn't exactly break new ground. Over the years, a variety of companies have implemented policies banning alcohol, soda, microwave popcorn, and even snacks from some or all premises. Many large employers participate in Meatless Mondays, including Subway, Chipotle, Sodexo and Aramark. But, as the Times notes, "WeWork appears to be the first big company to tell its employees what they can and can't eat."

Critics were quick to pounce.

Slate's Felix Salmon dubbed WeWork's policy a "tyrannical.... corporate ukase of dubious utility" in a piece last month. One of the most compelling points Salmon makes is a practical one—namely, that WeWork employees who wine and dine potential business partners around the world will no longer be allowed to pay for many of the meals those potential partners may wish to eat. That might rate as stupidity, but it's not tyranny.

Still, Salmon makes a good case that the policy demonstrates WeWork's wealthy owners may be as out of touch and full of themselves as this environmental campaigner. Or maybe this one.

"It's arrogant paternalism of the highest order for a billionaire American co-founder, one whose own personal carbon footprint is surely in the top 0.1 percent of global citizens, to impose his own preferred environmental solution on thousands of employees who were probably doing much better than he was, on that front, all along," Salmon writes.

Critics of the plan also include WeWork members, the term the company uses for those who pay to use its offices spaces.

"If you want to do that stuff, keep it in San Francisco where it belongs," said Christen Springs, a Houston, Tex. WeWork member whose family owns cattle in the state, in comments last month to the Houston Chronicle. (The paper also noted that WeWork sponsored Houston's Southern Smoke barbecue festival last year.)

Perhaps the most bizarre criticism of the WeWork policy comes from Vanity Fair's Maya Kosoff, in a piece under a headline that calls WeWork's policy "every libertarian's nightmare."

That's the sort of insight that could only come from someone who gained all of their understanding of libertarianism from watching Nick Offerman as the cranky, big-hearted carnivore Ron Swanson on Parks & Recreation.

But the bigger point about the Vanity Fair piece is, I think, that WeWork's policy isn't anti-libertarian in any way whatsoever. In fact, I find it to be an exceptionally libertarian policy.

"I think companies that live and express their commitments through work-space policies should be celebrated, even if the specific choices they make might alienate employees and customers," Reason Editor at Large Nick Gillespie told me by email this week. "As someone who is libertarian and tries to eat vegan—and a journalist who is always looking for a free meal—I think WeWork's policy is extremely appealing.

"Contra Maya Kosoff in Vanity Fair, who calls the new policy 'every libertarian's nightmare,'" Gillespie says, "WeWork isn't taking any choices away from its employees even as it gives them plenty to chew on."

Back in 2005, Reason hosted a fantastic debate between John Mackey (Whole Foods), Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, and Cypress Semiconductor honcho T.J. Rodgers on the subject of corporate social responsibility. The debate centered on Friedman's famed contention that the only responsibility of business is to maximize profit. I thought Mackey made the most compelling argument of the trio when he asserted that "the enlightened corporation should try to create value for all of its constituencies"—including customers and employees, and not just investors. Those ideas, expressed both in Gillespie's comments and WeWork's policy, are increasingly in vogue.

Is WeWork's policy right or wrong? Maybe. There are arguments about whether or not a plant-based diet is better for the environment—ideas that lie at the heart of the company's policy. As I note in my recent book, Biting the Hands that Feed Us: How Fewer, Smarter Laws Would Make Our Food System More Sustainable, "research by faculty at Carnegie Mellon University has cast some doubt on the long-held belief that fruits and vegetables are inherently more sustainable than meat."

But any company, including WeWork, is and should remain free to act on these or other beliefs so long as, like Gillespie suggests, it's not squashing its employee's choices.

If WeWork is right, the company will continue its impressive growth and likely attract and retain good employees who buy into its work and mission. Alternately, though, the company may be just as likely to lose employees for butting too far into their food choices. Either way—regardless of what Vanity Fair tells you—WeWork's new policy is nothing more than the free market at work.

Photo Credit: Kris Tripplaar/Sipa USA/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.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    WeWoke: Using social justice as cover for slashing expense accounts.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    If I were a fun loving vandal, it might be fun traveling around the country and rewo(r)king their signs.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    It would certainly be some awesome #Resistance

  • Krabappel||

    Speaking of woke - I got a good chuckle out of Robby Soave getting harassed by this social justice moron on twitter for using the term "woke".

    https://bit.ly/2vA3qPW

    He accused Robby of mocking the use of woke because it's AAVE (which I had to google, because I don't keep up to date with SJW retard-speak- "African American Vernacular English".

  • DajjaI||

    Berlatsky is a hypocrite. He's on a witch hunt against anyone who deviates from his socialist orthodoxy. He attacks and ridicules you but if you do the same to him he blocks you. These people are creating an echo chamber and self-radicalizing, and they really believe their own extremistist bs. It's modern day bolshevism. They think they will win the elections in Nov because the only information they see confirms their delusions. It will not end well for them.

  • fdog50||

    Sounds like he suffers from the Howard Cosell syndrome: Big mouth, thin skin.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    We're doing it wrong. We need to get back to the days when anyone outed as a devout socialist or communist feared for their career, their social standing, and possibly their physical well being.

    Marxism is treason, things started getting markedly worse the day this country forgot that.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You keep pining for the good old days (which mostly never existed), loser, while your betters continue to build a world in which racists, misogynists, gay-bashers, and xenophobes fear for their jobs and their social standing.

  • David Nolan||

    Shitlord means bigot, literally. This is an alt-right Trumpster calling for people to be beaten or killed for differing political views. He's literally calling for a return to McCarthyism -which was crushes by Goldwater, Reagan, Kemp, Buckley, Friedman,, et al, the now vanquished libertarian wing of the GOP, who are now independents,

    In the age of Trump.

  • Zeb||

    "AAVE" is really linguist-speak. "Ebonics" would be the retard-speak version.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Ebonics used to be the linguistic speak too.

  • I'm Not Sure||

    "African American Vernacular English", aka "Cultural Appropriation".

    What's "woke" in Swahili?

  • BillyG||

    WeWoke: Using social justice as cover for slashing expense accounts.

    They left a nice big gaping hole in that. Sushi is still allowed.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    As long as it's just Inari, that's ok.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    There are justifiable (if misguided) reasons for being a vegetarian from a moral perspective based on animal welfare. There are also justifiable reasons to avoid meat (red meat, at least) for health reasons. There are NO justifiable reasons to be a vegetarian from an environmental perspective. The more animals there are, the more efficient an ecosystem is at recycling resources, which increases overall productivity. As for climate change, I believe we are coming out of an ice age caused by the evolution of grasslands. Yes, this is being accelerated by humans, but it will ultimately increase the productivity of the planet.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Actually, most new research shows that there are few if any benefits from avoiding red meat. 80% of all cholesterol is made by your own body. When you decrease dietary cholesterol, your body increases the production of it. Research has shown decreasing dietary cholesterol has no impact on serum cholesterol levels. Additionally, SFA are not related to heart disease according to the most recent research. In fact, higher levels of fat may improve dieting. Red meat also has many health benefits. It is high in iron, Conjugated lineleoic acids (which decrease inflammation and may reduce heart disease) vitamin B12, vitamin A, E, and K.
    As for animal welfare, for the most part domesticated livestock is really well treated. Treating animals badly decreases meat quality, decreases performance and increases feed to gain (more feed to get the same amount t of gain) this increases production costs. Any livestock producer who mistrats their livestock will not remain in business for very long. PETA and that I'll edit their videos and outright lie (falsify) their videos.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    None of this addresses my feelings.

  • Trollificus||

    No, you clearly don't understand, with your white male "science" and "logic"! If we stop eating meat, the animals won't die!!

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Red meat increases testosterone. Men need it (especially those at Reason).

    On the flip side, don't believe that the animals aren't treated poorly. The won't be abused to the point of reducing profit, but there's little too be appreciated about a hog farm or chicken hatchery.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Yes, climate controlled, disease free, predator free. Must be hell. Sorry, but I work daily with livestock producers and none mistreat their animals.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Any stress reduces production. So any mistreatment would costs profits.

  • LarryA||

    WeWoke: Using social justice as cover for slashing expense accounts.

    Meat adds little to the expense of food once it's replaced by all the vegetables necessary to keep a diet balanced. If you want to whack someone's meal budget, cut out alcohol.

  • Ron||

    I thougt the same get ride of alcohole first and for those who dont know soy based products are five times less health than alcohol so get ride of that as well

  • lap83||

    "The company, which provides shared office spaces"

    So they specialize in the vegan sjw of office layouts. It all makes sense now.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I think companies that live and express their commitments through work-space policies should be celebrated, even if the specific choices they make might alienate employees and customers...

    I think Gillespie has a rival whatever-the-hell-WeWork-does company out there and he's hoping WeWork alienates themselves out of business.

  • ||

    a journalist who is always looking for a free meal

    Finally, a libertarian who acknowledges his belief in the existence of free lunches.

  • kevrob||

    If you are a vegan journo, must your jacket be pleather?

    Maybe you can get away with buying vintage, but you are still participating in the leather market, and their are substitution effects.

  • Trollificus||

    No, every time you don't buy a leather jacket, a cow comes back to life!

  • Trollificus||

    No, every time you don't buy a leather jacket, a cow comes back to life!

  • Trollificus||

    No, every time you don't buy a leather jacket, a cow comes back to life!

  • 5Arete22||

    What I tell you three times is true. -- Lewis Carroll (C. L Dodgson), _The_Hunting_of_the_Snark_

  • Rich||

    the company will no longer buy meat or reimburse its employees for work meals that contain the forbidden meats. ... The ban doesn't apply—for now at least—to "seafood, eggs, dairy and alcohol."

    So, drink up!

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    This policy destroys value for its employees, since it's going to cost them out-of-pocket money. In what way does it create value for the rest of its constituencies?

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    The company has made a bet on its future profitability. I won't be at all surprised if this policy is reversed very quietly in a month or two.

  • CE||

    The 3 percent of Americans who are vegetarian might be slightly more likely to employ their services. But probably they'll just base the decision on price, like before.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    In the free market, people who disagree with WeWork's values are able to open up their own competing business in San Francisco that serves humanely produced locavore meals. From the linked article:

    As soon as a whale was beached, people would yell and run towards it to hook it.

    There were lots of children and families there. They were all having fun, like they were at a football match. It shocked me how much they were enjoying it. I saw children with blood spatters on their lips.
  • SQRLSY One||

    Hey, whales are a renewable resource, unlike petrol, so quit yer bitchin'!!!!

    (I am going to fire up my whale-oil lamp now, and travel the world, looking for one honest man).

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    You are gonna be literally lighting the Michael Hihn signal.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Your goober buddy is gone.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    What happened to him?

  • Brendan||

    I don't know, but I'm OK with it. He appears to have been flat out purged, something I'm also OK with.

    I did a search here for Michael Hihn and found this

    "Please cancel my subscription immediately. REASON magazine, which I eagerly awaited for well over a decade, no longer exists. Your 24-page piece on Bill Clinton's mind is the most repugnant piece of 'journalism' since Barry Goldwater was psychoanalyzed in 1964....I must conclude that REASON wants to emulate the explosive circulation growth of rags like American Spectator. Tabloid journalism—the frenzied exploitation of fears and prejudices—is overwhelming American culture. So while I'm sure the gutter will bring you more readers, I will not be one of them." (Michael J. Hihn, CompuServe 76360,2063)

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I'm not shocked. He was out of control. On some articles it became impossible to have discussion without endlessly scrolling because of his lengthy and numerous ranting posts.

    For his sake, let's hope someone has conservatorship over him and will. Are sure he gets the help he needs.

  • Overt||

    I think the reason (natch!) Vanity Fair calls this a "Libertarian Nightmare" is that it shows how thorny the libertarian rose might be. Many libertarians chafe at the notion of a government telling them what they must do, and feel that the world will be better for everyone if the government does so. VF is pointing out that in the absence of busybody politicians preaching "Thou Shalt..." while holding a gun behind their backs, we will get busybody billionaires preaching "Thou Shalt not..." while holding your paycheck.

    The problem for VF is that they confuse what force is. Liberals have long handwaved past the notion that all government laws are backed by real force ("Government is merely what we chose to do together!") while conflating corporate actions with force ("this company is literally KILLING the union!").

    As a libertarian, I recognize that freeing us from the yoke of government means freeing people with leverage (like your employer) to take their place, and that it is a cost many haven't necessarily appreciated. And of course, corporate nannies are FAR FAR FAR superior to government nannies for reasons that any libertarian should get. But it is a good reminder that in a libertarian era, there will still be arguments to have and resolve.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    WeWork isn't a problem, but market-dominating corporations like Facebook, Twitter, and Alphabet are often incentivized by government to do things the government couldn't constitutionally do itself. When you have 3 corporations controlling 90% of the mass speech in the developed world, the fact that they are nominally private is not going to buy much. Govt can get all 3 CEOs in a room and offer them tasty carrots if they play ball. (a la Merkel and Sugarmountain)

    Corporations are a creature of government which receive special legal protections that individuals and partnerships do not. Lysander Spooner must be rolling in his grave to see how corporatophilic the libertarian establishment has become.

  • Overt||

    *shrug* This is not a libertarian problem.

    I hate facebook and the little culture bubbles of pontificating that it enables. But they have been ascendant for what, a decade? Google for about two decades. Before them there was about a decade of Yahoo being ascendant. They too, shall pass in a free market. There is nothing magic about incorporation that makes them any more resilient in the face of creative destruction than a partnership.

    As you note, when companies tie in deep with governments, they aren't corporations any more. They are arms of the government. And we get all the bad things of a government (c.f. Ma Bell, Google enforcing the Chinese Great Firewall). The reason Google isn't in danger of customers walking (clicking?) away in China is that they have the government protecting them, like the government protected AT&T for years. Take away government as leverage, and a facebook/google/whatever alliance to push morals on an unwilling public would be a 10 year problem. And that is far better than the 30+ year problems (again, c.f. Ma Bell) that government sticks us with.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Oh god, here we go with the invalid comparisons. When Yahoo and MySpace and AIM were ascendant, their markets were not mature but still in the process of growing, and even then they were never as dominant as Google, Facebook, and Twitter are today in their matured markets.

    The search, online video, social media, and messaging markets are different anyway, because the people who make the decision to use those services are not paying for them. This prevents normal market dynamics from occuring. You use YouTube and Facebook and Twitter because all the people you want to interact with are there, not because they provide good service. This naturally leads to consolidation, not creative destruction, because upstart competitors have no benefit to offer users -- they can't compete on price and any service advantages the upstart can provide are more than made up for by the incumbent's larger user base.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Looks like you never heard of Friendster or MySpace. Your arguments are refuted by logic and history. The only thing that prevents normal market dynamics (meaning voluntary, mutually beneficial exchange) is coercion (meaning government interference in the market).

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Yeah, never heard of MySpace. That's why it's in the second sentence in my comment.

    The only thing that prevents normal market dynamics (meaning voluntary, mutually beneficial exchange) is coercion (meaning government interference in the market).

    Repeating your dogma doesn't refute my point.

  • Qsl||

    Lynne Kiesling makes the point that if you take a snapshot of the market at any given moment, there are dominant players that could be construed as monopolies, but depending on precisely when you took that snapshot, the dominant positions would vary, so is that really a monopoly? And what of natural monopolies, where at least for a given time there is one choice that provides a better service than all competitors (she also makes the argument that the promise of monopoly is necessary for a free market, which I won't go into here)?

    Essentially, you are applying the leftist mantra of equality of outcome to markets, which is highly suspect, and worse, by seeking to maintain "competition" within a market, you end up subsidizing players that should have died off (not to mention the arguments about the misallocation of capital).

    Now, if you want to discuss specific regulatory capture or otherwise abuse by monopolies, I'm all ears (and willing to even extend that to employer/employee dynamics of labor contracts... even as far as support for the much maligned public sector unions), but a snapshot as proof of unfairness in the market requires a bit more.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Lynne Kiesling makes the point that if you take a snapshot of the market at any given moment, there are dominant players that could be construed as monopolies, but depending on precisely when you took that snapshot, the dominant positions would vary, so is that really a monopoly?

    Her initial point is wrong. Tell me any moment in the last 10 years when Google wasn't dominant in search, YouTube in online video, and Facebook in social media.

    Essentially, you are applying the leftist mantra of equality of outcome to markets

    Do you even know what equality of outcome is? No part of my argument remotely comes close to advocating it.

    ... by seeking to maintain "competition" within a market, you end up subsidizing players that should have died off

    "Should" have, according to whom? Competition is what makes the free market work. Without it the benefits will not be realized. I'm willing to sacrifice a little efficiency to maintain competition. Note that that is not a tradeoff that needs to be made in most markets, as monopolies are naturally unstable in most industries, but these particular ones naturally tend toward consolidation.

  • Qsl||

    Golly gee, a whole ten years vs. the entire history of economic development. Are you still railing against the iniquity of the Dutch East India Company?

    You'd have to make the case why Google is a special exception to every other business that has existed, or at least any barriers to market that keeps other companies from competing. And maturity of markets is a complete red herring: GM was the largest auto maker in the world, only to be supplanted by Toyota, only to be supplanted again by Volkswagon. And auto makers get far more consideration by government than tech companies.

    Interference, even if for the best of reasons, is by definition not a free market. "Sacrificing efficiency" is a bit vague. Want to promote more competition; by all means tell us specifically how it is to be done, or how current regulations are stifling competition.

  • CE||

    Yahoo destroyed themselves.

  • Sevo||

    Modus Pwnens|8.4.18 @ 9:57AM|#
    "WeWork isn't a problem, but market-dominating corporations like Facebook, Twitter, and Alphabet are often incentivized by government to do things the government couldn't constitutionally do itself. When you have 3 corporations controlling 90% of the mass speech in the developed world, the fact that they are nominally private is not going to buy much. Govt can get all 3 CEOs in a room and offer them tasty carrots if they play ball. (a la Merkel and Sugarmountain)"

    Bullshit artist at work. Next we'll hear that companies collecting data are exactly the same as the NSA.
    Peddle your bullshit elsewhere; we've heard it before an called similar imbeciles on it.
    Fuck off.

  • hello.||

    Angry and stupid is a great combo.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Excellent comment, Overt. That is why libertarianism cannot be just about the NAP, but must be about the grounds from which the NAP sprouts. Those grounds are individualism, anti-authoritarianism, and tolerance. The latter two can be viewed as just derivations of individualism.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Without the NAP you don't have a clear, specific philosophy. Those three "grounds" mean incredibly different things to different people. Hell, even with a clear statement like the NAP, people try to redefine the meaning of "initiation" and "force" in order to sneak their personal preferences into the philosophy.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I didn't say no NAP. The NAP is necessary, but not sufficient. Your last sentence explains why.

  • CE||

    So go work for someone else.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Just because it's not anti-libertarian doesn't mean libertarians can't oppose it.

    But please continue lecturing us on how leftist corporations can do whatever they want, Reason.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Be fair. We approve of Chick-fil-a closing on Sundays and supporting Christian causes, then we can support these people proselytizing about their starvation diet. We can make fun of both companies too. What remains to be seen is if this company can weather the consequences of their decision to express their religion through their business policy. Chick-fil-a has no apparent problems; the people who buy their product don't really care what Hypersensitive Liberal Progressives think, except maybe in the negative. I suspect that Wework will also find it doesn't really affect much.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    I don't "support" either company's decision, I just ignore them as they have nothing to do with me. Is Reason now publishing an article about every company decision made in the US, to remind us that the decision is not anti-libertarian? I've never seen a Reason article proclaiming that CfA is not anti-libertarian for closing on Sundays.

  • Joe_JP||

    Starvation diet?

    A pro-vegan take on another website noted the diet isn't even fully vegan.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    When I was in a vegan diet, I was stuffed all the time. I basically ate the equivalent of ten bananas for breakfast. Same for lunch, and a more vegetable based dinner. Had to keep my fat ca,orders to less than 10% of the total intake, but as long as I did I lost a bunch of weight.

    I'm a big guy, but eating ten bananas or the equivalent was not easy.

  • David Nolan||

    But please continue lecturing us on how leftist corporations can do whatever they want, Reason.

    Libertarians don't even see leftist or "rightist" corporations. That's why we're now the majority of Americans, neither left nor right, which leaves a shrinking minority for right and left combined..

  • Modus Pwnens||

    You don't have to be a leftist or rightist to recognize leftism or rightism in others.

    Also, not being left or right does not make one a libertarian.

    Also, stop using a dead man's name in an attempt to boost your credibility.

  • David Nolan||

    When libertarians say we don't see rightist or leftist organizations, that means we don't care. It has no meaning to us. Same with how we see people. Liberty is not about tribalism.

    Also, not being left or right does not make one a libertarian.

    Did anyone say otherwise?

  • Modus Pwnens||

    When libertarians say we don't see rightist or leftist organizations, that means we don't care. It has no meaning to us.

    So "we" are blind morons? Speak for yourself.

    Did anyone say otherwise?

    Yes, you said otherwise, person fraudulently claiming to be David Nolan.

  • David Nolan||

    It's called tolerance, not blindness.

    Over 60% of Americans would self-describe as fiscally conservative and socially conservative. That is libertarian. Why did you assume otherwise?

    To clarify, I meant libertarian values. But 91% of them refuse to be called libertarian..
    So there's a major disconnect between libertarian values and libertarian ideology

    That's from what's called a Brand Management Survey, which measures whether a brand name's image enhances or detracts from the product or service image It was commissioned by Cato and conducte by a top independent pollster, I know of no similar survey.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Unless you're concerned we may think an actual dead guy is posting on the intertubes, it seems we can trust folks and let it go.

    /not a real hamster

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    not a real hamster

    What???? Wait, that's sarcasm, right?

  • NashTiger||

    I'm about fed up with these parody sock puppet accounts.

    Give me a real rodent I can trust

  • kevrob||

    Mickey Rat?!

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Ratso Rizzo?

  • David Nolan||

    it seems we can trust folks and let it go.

    Might that trust be a good alternative to the tolerance I was pimping? If there's any hope for healing our broken culture, we'll each need to find the whichever path gives is the confidence push forward.

    Isn't that also tolerance, respecting each other's paths?
    Individual liberty is the way!

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Unless you're concerned we may think an actual dead guy is posting on the intertubes, it seems we can trust folks and let it go.

    Not everybody knows David Nolan is dead. I had to look it up myself. So they might think this guy is the real David Nolan.

    If he were calling himself George Washington it would be different, though even that would be tacky.

  • David Nolan||

    Not everybody knows David Nolan is dead.

    Libertarians know,
    If they confuse me with the LP founder, then they'd know he's dead.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    So David, as a good libertarian you would acknowledge that Michael Hihn was a gibbering idiot, and really just a closet progressive right?

  • David Nolan||

    and really just a closet progressive right?

    Not that familiar with him except as a published writer. But those on the far-right have always said we are really progressive. Along with the doctrinaire left, they cannot fathom anyone being both fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Being very tribal they both act identically Anyone who disagrees with them, on anything must be the other tribe. But it's been 50 years that left and right are obsolete as the entire spectrum, as first claimed by LP-founder David Nolan.

    All the more so now, with our combination of values now over 60% of Americans.

  • Giant Realistic Flying Tiger||

    This guy is a Michael Hihn sock. Any moment now, he's gonna bust out the "60% of Americans identified as socially liberal and fiscally conservative, but less than 5% self identify as libertarians, because you people are assholes!"

  • Giant Realistic Flying Tiger||

    OH! I CALLED IT! I FUCKING CALLED IT! I STARTED TO TYPE MY RESPONSE, AND WHILE I WAS DOING IT, MIKE SHOVED THAT STAT IN HERE!

    (Weirdly, Mike usually seems a lot calmer when posting as David Nolan. Don't know why.)

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I find it fascinating how people are unable to hold their idiosyncracies in check when posting under a sock account. That's why they get outed sooner or later. Usually sooner.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    In noticed an unusually reasonable post from Hihn the other day, so I checked it wasn't the fake fake Hihn and it wasn't. He's getting his socks mixed up #laundryproblems

  • Hamster of Doom||

    We pretty much *are* assholes. Hihn' s worst fault isn't that he's incorrect. People are wrong all the time, we deal with it. It's that, right or wrong, he's a dick about it.

    I think the key might be that 'civilization' involves two-way roads. We could be a bit less "fuck you, fuck off, fuck your mother"; and everyone else can learn to accept that some people are weirdos who do weird things and can't be told what to do with a great big stick.

    Nomsayin. We could all grow the fuck up. I suspect we find the notion just a bit scary. Being big, noisy, aggressive in getting our preferences - that's easier. It just doesn't work very well.

    I could be wrong. It happens plenty. Cheers.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    So, like, apply libertarian principles to interpersonal communication? I am down. It will take a lot of personal effort, though.

  • David Nolan||

    C.M.B.

    So, like, apply libertarian principles to interpersonal communication?

    For libertarians, that's inherent. In our DNA.

    It will take a lot of personal effort, though.

    If you're authoritarian ( I don't know), it's not possible. Different DNA. Simple tolerance is often much easier, also good as a starting point down the path toward individual liberty. Climb aboard!

  • David Nolan||

    I don't know who Hihn is, but the number of personal attacks in this thread is shaneful on a libertarian web site.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    It's hard to be civil to people like Tony, PB, and AmSoc. They are truly malignant people at heart. I imagine they're all pretty rotten even outside of their politics. AmSoc certainly is.

  • David Nolan||

    It's hard to be civil to people like Tony, PB, and AmSoc

    I'm sure it is, for anyone claiming to be a Shitlord. Libertarians are far more tolerant even anti-authoritarian. Our primary moral value is non-aggression, which originally meant force, but the same authoritarian bent now launches unprovoked attacks, verbally.

    Ayn Rand's cohort, Nathaniel Branden, was the first to show that the compulsion to control other is an ego deficiency, not over-ego. To avoid the horror of non-acceptance, they force everyone to "accept" them..

    The vast majority of American are with us, as famously stated by Voltaire.

    "I disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

    That spirit, though few literally "to the death." Hence, the widespread disgust with all the tribal hatred these days. Liberty has been slowly expanding for centuries, And likely will always continue.

  • David Nolan||

    he's gonna bust out the "60% of Americans identified as socially liberal and fiscally conservative

    Gary Johnson kept repeating it throughout two political campaign for President, It's been a core belief to libertarians for nearly 50 years. It a founding principle of the Libertarian Party, developed by tts founder, Dave Nolan (the other one)

    The original phrasing was, "Most Americans are libertarian but don't know it." In 2005, Cato commissioned a top pollster to test it. It was 59% then, self-defining on fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Well over 60% now, on marriage equality alone.

    I'm not surprised that you'd know nothing of libertarian history and principles. But I'm amazed that you would know so little of both Johnson's campaigns -- whether or not you'd vore for him.

    The other possibility is two factions of libertarianism who are enraged by the survey. Tribal liberals and conservatives each think their own tribe is a majority, when they are less than 40%.combined. The other faction is segments within the party or movement, who's actions have made the label so "toxic" (the marketing term)

    But mostly, when Cato does a survey so favorable to libertarian values, why would it not be championed by millions of Cato, Party and Movement supporters? Does Fox brag about their highest rating in cable news? Really.

  • kevrob||

    Americans may self-describe as X% socially liberal and Y% fiscally conservative, but when it comes to their pet government programs, subsidies and types of expression that disturb them, those numbers plummet.

  • David Nolan||

    Americans may self-describe as X% socially liberal and Y% fiscally conservative,

    It's over 60% for both combined,

    When it comes to their pet government programs, subsidies and types of expression that disturb them, those numbers plummet.

    That's why 91% of them reject the libertarian label, We have absolutely nothing for them, from the entire libertarians establishment. Not taxes. Not healthcare, and not any overall reforms/restructuring. Nothing.

    We get crazy slogans that sound cool to the now-dominant anti-government mentality (not pro-liberty). Like the Flat Tax. We know the rich pay a huge amount of the income tax. Those progressive tax rates subsidize roughly 40% of the core middle class share of taxes.($99-100k) So a fat tax would be a middle-class tax increase more than 60% ... with NO plan for spending cuts either.

    The Fair Tax (consumption) is even crazier! The rich consume a tiny percent on their income. The middle class consumes nearly all of theirs (this by Forbes)

    Medicaid Vouchers sound like privatization, but insurance companies would add a costly middleman. DUH. And would increase competition in the wrong market. Insurance is not health care.

    More like a cult than a movement. Recently.

  • David Nolan||

    Correction

    Medicaid Medicare Vouchers sound like privatization

  • Qsl||

    The actual David Nolan was a proponent of the Land Vale Tax (as well as some other distinguished voices within libertarianism), but getting libertarians to work towards any taxation (even if it is a mass simplification), let alone a property tax is an exercise in futility (and yes I've read Rothbard's critique and was less than impressed). Same with welfare reform or any other host of topics where the perfect is the enemy of the good.

    And so libertarianism becomes essentially the mirror image of the utopists on the left.

    Except they actually manage some victories whereas libertarians struggle to ineffectually hold the line.

  • David Nolan||

    getting libertarians to work towards any taxation (even if it is a mass simplification), let alone a property tax is an exercise in futility

    Perhaps today, when so many fewer trace to Ayn Rand, the first (I believe) to show that taxation is immoral, AFTER government had been reduced to its minimum. But she also said "voluntary taxation" would be the very last step toward a free totally society, the very last reform to attempt. It could not work today, and would be a long process. That's why she ridiculed the libertarians of her day, then mosty anarchist.

    Because, "the moral is the chosen," she was perhaps more "consent of the governed" than even Jefferson.

  • hello.||

    Lol. Imagine having so little to say that you start a new identity because everyone ignore you and you still can't help but copy and paste the same inane bullshit.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I self describe as an anti-Franco neo-Huguenot agnostic.

  • David Nolan||

    Giant Realistic Flying Tiger
    "This guy is a Michael Hihn sock"

    I'm Ellen DeGeneres. Your mom was my lover for several years,.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Without the bold.

  • Sevo||

    David Nolan|8.4.18 @ 6:50PM|#
    Fuck off, scumbag.

  • Sevo||

    David Nolan|8.4.18 @ 10:27AM|#
    Fuck off, scumbag.

  • EscherEnigma||

    That's why we're now the majority of Americans […]


    Heh. Thread over. No one can top this comment.

    Heh. I needed a laugh this morning.

  • David Nolan||

    From Cato's web site. Cato survey conduted by a top independent pollster, Zogby Polling

    We asked half the sample, "Would you describe yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal?" We asked the other half of the respondents, "Would you describe yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal, also known as libertarian?"

    ... That is, by 59 to 27 percent, poll respondents said they would describe themselves as "fiscally conservative and socially liberal."

    59% is a majority

  • EscherEnigma||

    (A) Libertarianism has never been as simple as "fiscally conservative and socially liberal". To claim that is all it takes to be a "libertarian" is a lie
    (B) You can't assign political ideology to people. If they say they're not libertarian/Libertarian, they aren't. Claiming that they're libertarian anyway, in direct opposition to their stated allegiances, is not only disrespectful, it is a lie.

    In short? If your absurd claim isn't a joke, it's a lie.

  • David Nolan||

    Pay attention. It's not my "absurd claim" that humiliated your ignorant comment. It was the Cato Institute and a top pollster. I even put it in bold!

    Do we believe the David Nolan who founded the LP, and his Nolan Chart, the Cato Institute, Advocates for Self-Government and the entire libertarian establishment .. or someone who confuses "values" with an "ideology," and is so blatantly authoritarian?.

    That same survey found the libertarian LABEL rejected by 91% of libertarians.
    In Cato's own words:

    "In our Zogby survey we found that only 9 percent of voters with libertarian views identify themselves that way." -David Boaz and David Kirby (page search for the words)

    That's a clear break between the values and the ideology.

    The "definition" is elementary, It means personal liberty in both personal and economic matters, unlike the left and right who each advocate force to violate one of those.

    If someone promotes communal ownership, you wold say they are not communist unless they said they were! It doesn't work that way!

    facts

    (this is to clarify for any readers on what we are, and why)

  • Ben_||

    They are just as entitled to their religious practices as any other church.

    They seem like insufferable jerks though.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    As bad as the people who control Hobby Lobby or Chick-fil-A?

  • ||

    Yeh. They're such 'awful' people for not agreeing with progressive ideals.

  • soldiermedic76||

    At the risk of feeding the trolls (and being called a goober) can you articulate, without hyperbole, strawmen and or ad hominems, what exactly the corporation Chick Fil A did that is similar to what this corporation did? Not what their owners personal beliefs are, but rather a corporate policy that could be reasonably considered comparable?

  • David Nolan||

    The fact that you call one bad, when both are exercising the same principle. They both made decisions on how to spend their money as employers. Chick-Fil-A refused to pay for contraception,

    That's a well known fact, neither hyperbole, strawman or ad hominem. And you did ask.

    Some argue that Chick-Fil-A is different, because religion. The same straw man as gay birthday cakes, a special ,loophole for a favored group, Violates the 4th Amendment, and 1st.

    This story is curious. I assume they run a free cafeteria for employees, like mid- and large business sites.
    Would you want their entire menu mandated? By who?

  • David Nolan||

    Correction. Something didn't sit right. That type of landlord would not have enough employees for a cafeteria, so I checked their web site. The cafeterias are not in every city, but they are for the employees of their tenants. Way different.

    1) That's brilliant marketing to the smaller businesses they rent to .. which can be as small as desk space (no office per se) They also stress LARGE "common areas" -- couches, ping pong, beverages in the lobby, etc.

    2) The screaming is dead wrong. If you're a tenant with three employees, you have a cafeteria for their lunches, beverages and couches for breaks. In most states, you are mandated shorter breaks if you have an on-site cafeteria (don't have to go elsewhere) If you're employees refuse the cafeteria, you're back where all the other landlords are, but with the commons areas not available at most sites,

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Ramblings.

    If you want female birth control paid for but not male birth control paid for, you're a hypocrite.

  • David Nolan||

    If you want female birth control paid for but not male birth control paid for, you're a hypocrite.

    Who does that?

  • ||

    Why in the world should they pay for someone's contraception?

  • David Nolan||

    Why in the world should they pay for someone's contraception?

    Good point.
    Why should they pay for any health care at all?

  • soldiermedic76||

    When did I say either was bad? I asked how they were similar. But nice straw man there.

  • David Nolan||

    I asked how they were similar.

    You challenged their similarity. I corrected you.

  • hello.||

    Repeating the same thing over and over again may be soothing to your dementia-addled brain but it does not challenge or correct anyone else.

  • hello.||

    Chick-Fil-A refused to pay for contraception

    No you senile old piece of shit they didn't. Chik Fil A donated money to oppose gay marriage. You're thinking Hobby Lobby. Please refer to your strawman spreadsheet for easier copy and pasting in the future.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Not only that, the donation was several years old at the time the left lost their shit over it.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    I thought Mackey made the most compelling argument of the trio when he asserted that "the enlightened corporation should try to create value for all of its constituencies"—including customers and employees, and not just investors.

    Mackey is completely missing Friedman's point here. If a business does not create value for its customers or employees, the customers and employees have the option of going elsewhere. So there is an inherent incentive for a business to create value for them. Whereas if the business does not create value for its investors, their money is already gone and they can't get it back. Completely incomparable.

  • Bubba Jones||

    The investors can replace the management.

  • CE||

    Or incentivize them with stock grants and options and bonuses, so their interests are better aligned with the investors'.

  • Sevo||

    OT:
    "Health officials prepare to track SF electric scooter injuries"
    [...]
    "After a brief absence, shared electric scooters will soon return to San Francisco, and the city and the doctors at the meeting want to track the injuries — from skinned knees to head trauma — that result from the scooters and other transportation options flooding the city.
    "I can say that several years ago that I didn't see these types of injuries happening, and now I do," said Juillard, who is also a professor researching injury prevention at UCSF. "But we have to do the hard work of looking at the data to determine if there's truly a trend.""
    https://www.sfgate.com/business/article
    /Health-officials-prepare-to-track-SF
    -electric-13130834.php

    Haven't seen scooter riders blowing though stop signs; maybe they'll track biker injuries next.

  • David Nolan||

    Also great on a libertarian perspective.

    On Mackey v Friedman. there need be no conflict between profits and the rest, if the company follows the Marketing Concept that I teach my clients. It's at least similar to Koch Industries. And Macky did damn well on profits. It's entrepreneurial, and so are those three.

    The entire business structured backwards from the customer, which requires happy and satisfied employees to deliver each and every step, from raw materials to the cash register. Then add profit-based compensation, which virtually assures everybody wins - customers, employees and owners.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Hey asshole, stop using a famous dead man's name.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Do you have a 'name police' badge, or are you just an all-talk, authoritarian goober?

  • David Nolan||

    And so self-righteous. As "they" all are.

  • kevrob||

    Are you "John Doe" or "Prince Charming?"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nolan

  • David Nolan||

    Are you "John Doe" or "Prince Charming?"

    None of the seven David Nolans you linked to. Thanks for the link which I can ridicule many with.

    Who is kevrob? Any thoughts on the actual issue that began this thread?

  • kevrob||

    I'm a long-time reader of the mag and H&R comments hack. see:

    http://reason.com/blog/2005/06.....ater-yo-yo

  • David Nolan||

    Thanks. So you're Kevin Robinson, former wide receiver for the Hamilton Tiger-Cats. I saw several of their games when I was "stationed" in Canada. But that was long before your time.
    That must have seemed a great change for you, having played at Utah State!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    So after you mention kevrob, an hour later kevrob shows up.

    Neat.

  • David Nolan||

    Because I'm a Kenyan Muslim

  • hello.||

    The only thing sadder than you having to change your name in order to trick people into talking to you is replying to yourself because even under your new alias nobody wants to talk to you.

  • Rockabilly||

    Vanity Fair is a joke.

    Page after page of effete douchebags chatting about the latest fabulous party hosted by Countess Tightass.

  • DajjaI||

    Vegetarians think that humans are evil by nature and thus don't deserve to eat meat. Thus they tend to be anti-corporation. So this seems to be a savvy brand move. Personally I think we should do a better job of ensuring humane conditions, like free range etc.

  • Shirley Knott||

    I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals.
    I'm a vegetarian because I hate plants.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Having your employer try to tell you to be a vegetarian is literally Hitler!!!

    'Cause Hitler was a vegetarian, you know...

  • RabbitHead||

    I like pudding so I have to eat meat

  • ColoradoKook||

    How can you have any pudding if you don't want your meat?

  • ColoradoKook||

    Damn autocorrect...eat

  • kevrob||

    You are A. Whitney Brown, AICM£5!

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    What about people who've reached a personal decision that they don't want to eat meat and don't impose the choices on others? The militant vegan/vegetarian trope isn't absolute. I know those people are out there, but it often seems to me like many "libertarians" are reactionary against individuals choosing what they eat/wear, because the market responds and perhaps some see it as a threat to their meat entitlement. In reality meat isn't going anywhere (it's dead!). If an individual wants to eat meat, they can. If an individual doesn't want to, they can get pigeonholed with all the "Hezbollah" types (RIP Bourdain). I get it. Militant preachy people are annoying but

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    in the real world I find most to be anything but. I choose to associate with folks who respect individual choices, and the same 5 or 6 jibes any time someone finds out they're veggie become a drag because it's like the cartoon about the steak with ketchup. I do unfortunately also know at least one stereotypical vegan who announces it to the world at any given opportunity, maybe because there's nothing much more to say about herself. Mostly though I never actually know someone is veggie until I go out to eat with them. Perhaps I've had good experience because I choose not to associate with dickbags (except here on Reason heyoo!). There are a couple of excellent veggie places in town and I don't feel the need to go full Swanson if I'm in mixed company. There's definitely a certain insecurity about it among a subset of "libertarians", who are apparently not okay with some individuals making "wrong" choices despite no NAP violations. Ho hum.

  • kevrob||

    They make jerky, and packaged, cooked bacon you can take with you, if you are "forced" to order from a veggie menu. :)

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Of course. A libertarian should not have any problems with another person's eating choices, unless that other person tries to force their beliefs onto others. Unless they are eating other people, I suppose. Even then, as long as it is voluntary, it should be cool. If you wanna sell your arm to a billionaire cannibal for a sum that is reasonable to you, go right ahead.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Well then how about that them thar consensual cannibalism?

    How Courts Treat Consensual Cannibals
    This week a German man was sentenced to eight and a half years in prison for killing and eating a man who wanted to be killed and eaten—and it isn't the first time the legal system has had to deal with such a case.

    http://www.vice.com/en_us/arti.....shists-403

    It is one strange world out there... Be careful out there among them Germans!!!

  • lap83||

    After hearing a couple of such stories, I can only hope it won't tarnish the otherwise blemish-less reputation of those of us with German background.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    That gives me an idea.

  • David Nolan||

    A libertarian should not have any problems with another person's eating choices

    We also have no problem with another person's spending choices. Liberty is not a private highway.

  • soldiermedic76||

    First: define "free range"
    Second: present evidence that free range is better for the environment (hint: the bulk of scientific research shows the exact opposite)
    Third: definition e humane, using scienctific concepts not feelings.
    Fourth: provide scientific evidence (i.e. empircal data) that free range is more humane.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    I think this one got lost on it's way to a Lenore Skenazy article, unlike her children who never get lost.

  • CE||

    Or use common sense. No living creature wants to be confined to a cage.

  • Overt||

    Companies have a responsibility to their shareholders, and will go out of business if they fail to deliver value. Their moral preening is merely a marketing expense. We have seen the public's taste for marketing go from "Wow look how innovative that company is, conquering the savage frontiers" to "Wow, look how woke that company is, throwing money down the solar rat hole".

    My own company's diversity/community service/enviro-nuttery is a drop in the bucket vs their OpEx. And it is often matched or even dwarfed by the advertising money spent to broadcast their piety to the masses- proving that it is all about marketing. The money google spends on its green datacenters amounts to rounding errors compared to what they spend in those data centers to profile each and every one of us. If companies were truly envirochurches of social responsibility, they would spend every dollar to engage in this nonsense, with no money left to issue press releases, innovate or make their employees rich (and yet I don't hear google employees complaining about pay).

    These marketing exercises are no more or less rational than a company paying some football star or B-list celeb to make wacky commercials peddling their products. There is no moral outrage to be found here, just personal dismay that so many of our public really think a company's Leed rating on their HQ somehow makes their product better than the competition. But then, customers fall for marketing gimmicks all the time.

  • ||

    Friedman is correct in my view. And now that I own a business, I understand this ostensibly 'simple' logic on a much more deeper level. If you maximize profits everything else can flow from that. Whereas Mackey's take comes, as you argue, at the expense of (potential) profits. Let the business do what it's supposed to do (maximize profits and pay wages to employees in return for labor rendered) and if the business feels compelled to go beyond (whatever that could be defined as - say, adopting the orphans they exploit and giving them an education - The School for Exploited Orphans Who Don't Read So Good if you will) profits all the power to them.

    My sole focus and responsibility is to keep my business viable and profitable for me, my family, employees and the communities to which they belong.

    What's left over, I cut a check, in part, to the War Amps or some other children's charity.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Happy B.Y.D. to Matt Welch, Nick Gillespie, and all the rest of his many idolators here at Reason!!!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    One of the worst states celebrating one of the worst presidents. Makes sense.

  • Tony||

    Have you ever been? What do you mean by worst, specifically?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Illinois is high tax, bad roads, and corrut cops looking to nab you for doing 45 in a 55 on the interstate.

    They still have 55 speed limits for rural interstate. Corrupt as shit.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Now, now, Democrats gotta be Democrats.

  • Jerryskids||

    Perhaps the most bizarre criticism of the WeWork policy comes from Vanity Fair's Maya Kosoff, in a piece under a headline that calls WeWork's policy "every libertarian's nightmare."

    You misspelled "retarded". There's no use arguing with somebody who uses "libertarian" as a dismissive sneer any more than somebody calling you a racist, a fascist, a Nazi, a fill-in-the-blank-phobe, privileged, or any of those other terms that just means you're a wrongthinker. When somebody calls you an asshole, it's not because they're unfamiliar with human anatomy and they're really not interested in listening to your explanation of what an asshole actually is.

  • jdd6y||

    Hard hitting. Reason now needs to opine on whether non-controversial private decision X is 'libertarian?' They must be out of meaningful topics. Next up - "Farting in public, it may smell, but it's libertarian."

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Technically speaking, farting is an act of aggression.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    I remembered a potential precedent set a decade ago where a West Virginia man was charged with assaulting a police officer for passing gas at him, but apparently the prosecutors ultimately asked to drop the charge.

  • gah87||

    Overfishing is arguably a greater immediate environmental concern than cattle or pig farming. So why still permit seafood? Sounds like a subjective judgement call rather than scientifically based objective policy.

  • mtrueman||

    There are many people who call themselves vegetarians yet continue to eat fish, crustaceans, sea cucumbers, urchins and other creatures of the sea. You may condemn this as a subjective judgement call but that's people for you.

  • Giant Realistic Flying Tiger||

    it's okay to eat fish 'cause they
    don't have any feelings

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    What about the fish people?

  • Giant Realistic Flying Tiger||

    I'm the wrong Tony to ask about that.

  • Pelagic Tony||

    Hello, Pelagic Tony here; your Tony for all things fishy. The fish people have very strong feelings, mostly about ending up as bycatch in commercial fishing operations by the primate people, and also about the concentration of heavy metals in their food chain.

  • Giant Realistic Flying Tiger||

    Hey new Me. Are you from the same universe as Yellow Tony, or are you from this universe but a fish person, or are you from a completely different universe?

  • Pelagic Tony||

    I am from your universe (Earth-615), and I am the result of a secret government program to create a viable human-fish person hybrid super soldier. I escaped from the facility and requested asylum from the fish people. Eventually, after the mothballing of the project during the Reagan administration, I was appointed Ambassador to the Primate People by the Sacred Council of the Fish People, and I have served in that position for more than three decades.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Cool. Give my best to Namor and Arthur Curry.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    If we could farm pigs in the ocean, that would be really cool.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Some genetically engineered pigs that photosynthesize and have a big floating chamber? I am down.

  • Pelagic Tony||

    I have been given authority to negotiate on behalf of the Fish People for an agreement whereby some of their oceanspace could be leased for marine pig husbandry.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Could you teach these pigs to eat the giant garbage patch? I'm not sure about that bacon but who knows.

  • Pelagic Tony||

    The Holy Garbage Patch is a sacred place for the Fish People and any attempt by governments or NGOs to desecrate or infringe upon or "clean up" the Realm of the Blessed Trash will be seen as an act of war. It may however be possible to negotiate grazing rights for the sea-swine.

  • CE||

    I think they must already have flying pigs, since many pundits said we would in 2016 if Trump won the election.

  • David Nolan||

    Not really, and he won the entire thing by a mere 39,000 voters, in three states combined,
    And is indeed the most distrusted President in the history of that poll question.
    Can you name another President, forced to pay a $25 million settlement for ... fraud ... while in office (or not)?

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    100% BACON pigs!

  • perlchpr||

    Just because a policy doesn't violate the NAP doesn't necessarily make it a "libertarian policy".

  • mtrueman||

    It's a corporate policy, one which underscores the distinction between the employers who make the policy, and those who are expected to follow it.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Why not?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    *barf

  • hello.||

    Imagine a Christian business that refuses to pay for abortion and birth control for its employees and I'll bet you can find some clarity on the subject you disingenuous fuckstain on the human genome.

  • macsnafu||

    'Just because a policy doesn't violate the NAP doesn't necessarily make it a "libertarian policy".'

    Well, it may not be promoting libertarianism, but if it doesn't violate the NAP, then it's not un-libertarian, is it?

  • David Nolan||

    NAP alone does not define libertarianism, which is why it is seized by racists and bigots, like Rothbardians and Paulites. It allows the denial of racial and gender equality, denying women the right to vote, and virtually the entire gamut of civil liberties. Refusing to defend rights equally does not require initiating force, does it? Also wrong to pass laws and/or taxes with special exemptions for favored groups.

    That's why the other David Nolan (LP founder) created a more inclusive definition, and why we have the 9th and 14th amendments. See World's Smallest Political Quiz, using a chart also created by the other Nolan to illustrate his point. https://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/ The very first question.

  • Agammamon||

    . . . arguing that it offends omnivores . . .

    No, no it doesn't. And any 'omnivore' that thinks they've been insulted should just be ridiculed.

    Choosing not to choose a choice I've made does not insult me. Insulting me insults me.

    WeWork's policy a "tyrannical.... corporate ukase of dubious utility"

    No more, and no less, than policies that completely forbid the consumption of alcohol at company events or prescribe a dress code.

  • Uncle Adolf's Gas and Grill||

    But the bigger point about the Vanity Fair piece is, I think, that WeWork's policy isn't anti-libertarian in any way whatsoever. In fact, I find it to be an exceptionally libertarian policy.

    Why is it that libertarian policies that bring us more liberty in principle always seem to end up denying us more liberty in fact?

    Libertarianism: Freedom and equaling us all the way to the gulag. And don't forget to bake that cake!

  • mtrueman||

    Libertarianism: Do you pay taxes? You're already in the gulag.

  • Uncle Adolf's Gas and Grill||

    Which is not necessarily wrong, either. "Free society" is an oxymoron. The most basic presumption of society is you subordinate a portion of your autonomy in order to gain the benefits of group membership. Your "individual rights" are of little use to you if not enforced by group action, whether the enforcer is a government, an employer or the mafia.

    Absence of coercion by government does not guarantee an absence of coercion by other agents. In fact, it invites it. Libertarianism merely offers an alternative set of trade-offs. I am not convinced that a libertarian social order necessarily guarantees me more actual freedom than the other alternatives.

  • ||

    Lol. Your handle.

    Horrible but funny.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    He's just imitating the language of racists.

  • David Nolan||

    "Free society" is an oxymoron. The most basic presumption of society is you subordinate a portion of your autonomy in order to gain the benefits of group membership.

    It's voluntary
    The moral is the chosen.

  • David Nolan||

    Libertarianism: Do you pay taxes? You're already in the gulag.

    Only the crazy one, ridicule by even Ayn Rand.

  • MasterThief||

    The company is saying it won't pay for certain things. I have no problem with this. I don't agree with their position on meat, but if they don't want to pay for it directly that is not an issue.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The libertarian part isn't WeWork banning meat, or requiring meat, or not caring either way.
    The libertarian part is that WeWork, and everyone else involved, have the freedom to choose whatever position on eating meat that they wish.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Non-libertarian dishing. Its chemjeff 101

  • jdgalt1||

    Cases like this are litmus tests for libertarians. A shallow, property-rights-only libertarian will support the company and tell its critics to shut up. A real, cultural libertarian will start organizing the boycott.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Sarcasm? You can support the right to criticize the company for their actions without supporting a boycott.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    A real, cultural libertarian will start organizing the boycott.

    Is that "real" libertarian already boycotting Chick-fil-A and Hobby Lobby, or are there special exemptions for superstition-based authoritarians or right-wing yahoos?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    A libertarian who is centered on individualism rather than enforcing some cultural dogma will not really give a shit what people do with their own money on their own time.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Since youre not a libertarian, linertarians have opinions tht they might vote with their wallet. Libertarians dont want government interference in issues that can be decided by the market.

  • CE||

    Any kind of libertarian would let the people running the company make their own policies. No one is forced to work for them or do business with them. What kind of libertarian wants to limit their freedom to choose what they will reimburse people for?

  • David Nolan||

    The screamerr are all right-wingers, PISSED that a hated "lefty" has rights equal to theirs.
    Why even have a government, if not to impose one's own superiority? Harumph

    They both do it. Left + Right = Zero/

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "The company will no longer serve red meat, pork[,] or poultry at company functions, and it will not reimburse employees who want to order a hamburger during a lunch meeting," the New York Times reported. The ban doesn't apply—for now at least—to "seafood, eggs, dairy and alcohol."

    This is not about health, this is about using company money to support Vegetarian causes.

    Its a private so they can do what they want but I would quit and/or pull my money out of that sinking ship. If a company spends resources on making sure company money is not spent on meant, then they are wasting resources and are surely going to waste money on other things.

  • No Longer Amused||

    As if vegetarians weren't big enough assholes already...

  • Tony||

    I'm surprised libertarians don't object to expensing food in the first place. Seems too nice a perk for the ideal libertopian sweatshop.

  • ||

    Only you could take expensing items to be libertarian.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony has zero what libertarianism is, so it makes sense.

  • David Nolan||

    Is he as ignorant as you on it?

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Hey, I feed my worker orphans vegan gruel. Because I don't want them to get diabetes or heart disease later in life.

  • Tony||

    I don't know the math exactly, but maybe some real protein would keep them from collapsing on the job so frequently.

  • Longtobefree||

    They only collapse once. Then they are tossed on the trash heap and forgotten.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Wasteful.

    They collapse once, and become the next protein snack for the remainder.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Yes Tony, I'm sure you have some fresh protein supplements for those developing young boys.

  • ||

    "It's arrogant paternalism of the highest order for a billionaire American co-founder, one whose own personal carbon footprint is surely in the top 0.1 percent of global citizens, to impose his own preferred environmental solution on thousands of employees who were probably doing much better than he was, on that front, all along,"

    Well, he's not wrong.

    Most of the people doing most of the yapping and screaming about the environment (including Gore) are the uber-rich leaving a carbon foot print bigger than Samsquanch's cock. They're disingenuous hucksters if you ask me.

    Over/under Tom Brady is caught drinking from his 'health' drink from a straw on TMZ?

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    Strawz have ballz!!!!!!!

  • Flinch||

    Vegans can go get fat on their own time/dime. Our bodies need protein, and any company I work for that whips out the vegan playbook... I'm gone. It's not so much that it's stupid [and I do think it is], but the lack of focus - it drains away from mission, valuing the customer, and reduces employees to imbecile status. I'll pick my own damn lunch, thank you very much. Can a cafeteria provide some choices that respect those avoiding meat? Sure - just make sure it stays a choice and firewall it from becoming a dictat. WeWork is as lost as a Namibian dropped onto inland Antarctica - I will avoid them and their business associates like the plague wherever possible.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Ever heard of beans and nuts?

  • Sevo||

    Certainly have, but protein itself is not sufficient.
    You MUST have sufficient B-12 or you die, and it comes only from fauna:
    https://veganhealth.org/vitamin-b12/

  • Echospinner||

    Workspace rental in not a new concept. It works for many people.

    This company is only going to offer veggie in house food vending. If I were renting or leasing that might be a deciding factor.

    I like hummus but c'mon.

    All this company sells are lease rental agreements. They want to go past that to some life choice whatever crap. The company thinks it is growing business. It does not.

  • David Nolan||

    If I understand this correctly, their marketing created a conflict. I assume they provide a employee cafeteria but for employees of their tenants. That is an immense "fringe benefit" for smaller employers, and competitive benefit for the landlord. Also, in many or most states, an mini-site cafeteria allows a half-hour lunch break instead of an hour.

    They may lose some current tenants, but overall, they win on marketing. If you're a tenant, and your employees refuse the cafeteria ... where are you? Exactly the same as any other similar landlord.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    You can tell it's a fake Nolan because it thinks there's such a thing as a free lunch. WeWork recovers the cost of the cafeteria somehow, either by charging higher rent or high prices for food. If it's the former then the tenants are forced to pay for food service that their employees don't want. If it's the latter -- good luck pushing that vegan shit.

  • David Nolan||

    I never said a free lunch, An employee cafeteria is a major draw for many small employers, along with commons areas for lounging, ping pong etc. They also rent very small spaces, even a desk only.

    All their properties are huge, which says the market for that type of office space is huge. Whatever the size, the market has already proven you wrong, which is obvious by all the cities they are in. That's how markets work. If we see something we want to acquire or rent, we are "forced" to pay what the seller charges, And the seller is "forced" to offer market price. That's a market, not a gulag!.

    And visit their site, to see the cafeteria is a tiny part of what they odder. Very tiny. It's like the head office for Microsoft, Google and Apple. They seem to target tech clients. https://www.wework.com/

  • Sevo||

    Fuck off, scumbag.

  • David Nolan||

    I provided the link that proves my points, and defend that readers think for yourselves.
    I did not tell Modus Pwens to "fuck off," even when he lied about my words. I provided more proof.

    Among the meanings of libertarian is ... not authoritarian.
    The reader sees both in this subthread. Which one are you?
    Which would Jesus be? Jefferson? Ayn Rand?

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Where did I lie about your words? You stated that the cafeteria comes at no cost to tenants, which is hogwash. That's what "no free lunch" refers to. Have you really never heard that expression?

  • David Nolan||

    Where did I lie about your words?

    Already explained,

    You stated that the cafeteria comes at no cost to tenants, which is hogwash.

    You're also a fucking liar

    If I understand this correctly, their marketing created a conflict. I assume they provide a employee cafeteria but for employees of their tenants. That is an immense "fringe benefit" for smaller employers, and competitive benefit for the landlord. Also, in many or most states, an mini-site cafeteria allows a half-hour lunch break instead of an hour.

    So you lied about what I said, rather shamefully. Also ignorant of employee cafeterias, which are not free, for reasons obvious to anyone who understands economics -- which you clearly do not.

    The meals could quite easily be a free for the employees, paid for by .... the tenant! Employees don't pay rent. And "no such thing as a free lunch" applies to the fallacy that nobody pays.

    If you're still confused, see almost any text on market economics.
    And stop lying so blatantly.

  • hello.||

    Lol. You just can't help yourself can you Mikey.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    I've been wondering how long it would take him to start going out of control. It didn't take very long.

  • VinniUSMC||

    You should really get that Hihnfection checked out Mikey.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    So David, how about that Ron Paul. Isn't he awesome? Amd I sure hope Rand becomes president after Trump's eight years. That would be awesome.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    It's well known that Jesus, now in his third regeneration, is traveling through time and space, saving people, from sin, natural catastrophes, alien invasions, etc..

  • David Nolan||

    I melted FIVE snowflakes by ... linking to absolute proof!

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Yep. Just like the greatest libertarian of all, Ron Paul!

  • jdd6y||

    They are also saving immensely on food costs. My cynic sense says that they wanted to cut costs, because the company makes no profit, and then found a way to seem woke in doing it. Imagine how much more your local Indian all you can eat lunch buffet would make without the chicken? Beans are basically free in bulk.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Well it all depends on if enough carnivorous employees feel it is a morale drain and dealbreaker for working for WeWork. Another test of "Get woke, go broke".

  • Oli||

    Their company, their rules. As libertarian, you can be of the opinion it's a stupid idea, but that's about it.

  • PaulTheBeav||

    I agree, however the rule change should come with a 1 year lead time. It takes some time to find another job.

  • Oli||

    Fair enough.

  • mtrueman||

    "It takes some time to find another job."

    It only takes a minute to quit your job.

  • PaulTheBeav||

    Just take a pen to the receipt and scratch out "hamburger" and write in "tofu burger".

    They'll pay you. It's all just virtue signaling. The company wants to be able to say they've gone meatless and so long as the receipt says tofu they can say they are meatless. You get what you want and they get what they want.

  • ColoradoKook||

    Or, you could ask the restaurant worker for a today burger, but please sub in real meat. It will cost the company more on the bill.

  • ravenshrike||

    So if an employee gets food poisoning from a salad at Chipotle or McDonalds can they sue WeWork for limiting their meal reimbursement to foods which are statistically much, much, much more likely to cause serious illness?

  • I'm Not Sure||

    There was a new neighborhood restaurant opening up, everybody was interested to find out what it would be. Turns out, it would be a BBQ joint and their Facebook page included their menu. Very first post in response- "There's no vegan items on the menu." A fucking BBQ restaurant, no less.

    How many vegan restaurants offer steaks or ribs?

  • DenverJ||

    Is a Company's Choice To Go Vegetarian Really 'Every Libertarian's Nightmare'?

    It's everybody's nightmare

  • David Nolan||

    Not everybody. Libertarians are deeply committed to tolerance.
    For 50 years now,

  • DenverJ||

    Yeah it was a comment on vegetarian food, not libertarianism.

  • David Nolan||

    No, it was more about intolerance. And so was mine.

  • DenverJ||

    Well aren't you a sanctimonious pharisee. I'm so sorry if my joke about vegetarianism offended your sense of tolerance. Actually, I'm not. I'll bet you're just a blast at parties.

  • Giant Realistic Flying Tiger||

    Dude, it's a Hihn sock, albeit one that doesn't fly into a boldfaced, incoherent, incontinent rage every time you respond to one of its comments.

  • Sevo||

    David Nolan Born: November 23, 1943, Washington, D.C., U.S. Died: November 21, 2010 (aged 66), Tucson, Arizona, U.S.
    Occupation: Writer, politician
    Could well be that scumbag Hihn or equally someone else hoping to trade on the name of a pioneer hoping to get a more sympathetic reading of his or her bullshit.

  • David Nolan||

    Why won't Sevo deal with my ideas? Or any ideas?
    There are seven David Nolans, all "famous" enough to be listed in Wkipedia,
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nolan

    None of them are me.

  • Sevo||

    David Nolan|8.4.18 @ 10:22AM|#
    David Nolan|8.4.18 @ 10:27AM|#
    David Nolan|8.4.18 @ 9:05PM|#
    David Nolan|8.4.18 @ 11:53AM|#
    David Nolan|8.4.18 @ 1:25PM|#
    David Nolan|8.4.18 @ 3:37PM|#
    David Nolan|8.4.18 @ 6:49PM|#
    David Nolan|8.4.18 @ 4:20PM|#
    And more; not worth it.
    Fuck off, scumbag

  • David Nolan||

    David Nolan|8.4.18 @ 10:22AM|#
    David Nolan|8.4.18 @ 10:27AM|#
    David Nolan|8.4.18 @ 9:05PM|#
    David Nolan|8.4.18 @ 11:53AM|#
    David Nolan|8.4.18 @ 1:25PM|#
    David Nolan|8.4.18 @ 3:37PM|#
    David Nolan|8.4.18 @ 6:49PM|#
    David Nolan|8.4.18 @ 4:20PM|#

    There's a lesson here. Can you see it?
    In none of those do I tell anyone to fuck off, or call anyone a hateful name. They all present and/or defend a libertarian value, concept or position .

    Libertarian is the opposite of authoritarian. What's the difference? Only one seeks to shout down views which differ from theirs, and/or personally attack.the speaker. Why?

    The reason is self-evident. They have no positions at all, or cannot defend what any they do have. And we know what happens when their mentality controls a nation, eh?

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Identity theft is a libertarian value?

    I knew the cosmotarians are chill with illegals filling out W-4 with a stolen SSN and 10 exemptions claimed, so nothing gets withheld and the true holder of the SSN gets stuck with the tax due at the end of the year, but falsely claiming to be the LP founder is a whole other ball game.

  • David Nolan||

    There are seven David Nolans, all "famous" enough to be listed in Wikipedia,
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nolan


    Identity theft is a libertarian value?

    No, but honesty is.
    And literacy.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Alcohol-free beer is everybody's nightmare.

  • Sevo||

    There's plenty of competition in Wework's business; if they find a cohorts of non-meat-eaters, fine. If not, they'll change the rule or lose money.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Companies with objectionable habits do not always fail. Downscale customers love Hobby Lobby, for example.

  • hello.||

    Is that where you go to buy your hobbyhorses Mikey?

  • David Nolan||

    There are so few libertarians in this commentariat that right-wingers assume they must allbe "Mikey" with different socks. Because Obama is a Kenyan Muslim. The first moon landing was a hoax. And Alex Jones is actually the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "Alex Jones is actually the Second Coming of Jesus Christ."

    Wrong. Jesus traveled to the 18th century to recover from his first regeneration, which is the basis for the Easter resurrection.

    Jesus then proceeded to adopt the more contemporary identity of "Benjamin Franklin" and lived for several decades in the 18th century. Once even repelling an alien invasion using kites to harness electricity from lightning. He was also the early scientific advisor to the president, before finally leaving to travel the cosmos.

  • David Nolan||

    before finally leaving to travel the cosmos.

    Then returing to create Infowars

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Possibly. Perhaps the distillation of all that is evil within Jesus has gained its own identity. An amalgamation of the fairness within him somewhere between his 12th and final incarnations.

  • n00bdragon||

    Nevermind the pressing issues of liberty and fiscal responsibility, we've got a KULTURKAMPF to fight!

  • buybuydandavis||

    More cultural Marxism. Using institutional power to push culture.

    If that's the way we're going to play, I want to work at Carnivore Corp.

  • Oli||

    What do you want, governmental rules that force companies to reimburse ALL kind of meals?

  • David Nolan||

    No, he wants government power to impose a right-wing agenda. Just as evil as some on the left.
    And both are self-righteous.

    Also expands the definition of Marxism. Communal ownership of ... celery!

  • Giant Realistic Flying Tiger||

    "Communal ownership of ... celery!"

    This typography, so typical of Hihn. Seriously, dude, if you're gonna use a sock, you gotta change your behavior a fair amount.

    Then again, you never caught on when it came to me (and could it have been any more obvious? Everyone else figured it out), so maybe you figure everyone else is just as unobservant.

  • David Nolan||

    Among writers and well-read people. it's called an ellipsis.
    We also know what typography means.
    And why you evade the actual issues.

  • hello.||

    Too bad you can't change your identity in order to sucker people into speaking to you in real life Mikey. Maybe you'd get a visitor or two in the nursing home before the brain cancer finishes rotting away your brain.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    It's like the wheel of time in here...

  • eyeroller||

    But any company, including WeWork, is and should remain free to act on these or other beliefs so long as, like Gillespie suggests, it's not squashing its employee's choices.

    No, see, you're tripping over yourself here. The company also has the right to "squash its employees' choices".

    If they required every employee to sign a contract promising that they would never eat meat again, they would be within their rights, and Reason should defend that just as hard as you're defending this.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    I think we're confusing here the difference between thinking something shouldn't be illegal, and libertarians being obligated to not disapprove of it.

    Sure, WeWoke isn't doing anything here that ought to be illegal, which is to say, that ought to be met with threats of violence.

    But they absolutely are doing something libertarians might reasonably disapprove of.

  • vek||

    Yup.

    And I find it hilarious that in many situations Reason goes waaay out of their way to APPROVE OF lefty/proggie stuff, while doing the exact opposite with any "right wing" preference being imposed by a company.

    They show where their sympathies really lie all the time here. They can't hide their proggie leanings.

    I'm all for saying basically everything should be illegal, but I think that social shaming of retarded, gay (ZOMG I called something gay! Even though I don't mind gay people, I'm making an effort to bring it back!), lame shit like this should be encouraged. It's the way the left got everybody to cave to their insane ideas, and people right of center on things need to start using social shaming again. People like this company owner deserve to be shamed and ridiculed for being tools.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Libertarian cattlemen?

  • ColoradoKook||

    I wonder what would happen if my company told our employees we won't pay for any meal including vegetables of any kind, since they're known carriers of infection.

    They might actually like the move, but I'm sure we would be excoriated.

  • David Nolan||

    I wonder what would happen if my company told our employees we won't pay for any meal including vegetables of any kind, since they're known carriers of infection.

    They'd be ridiculed for immense stupidity..
    What types of meals do they pay for now?

  • ColoradoKook||

    This user does not engage in conversations with Michael Hihn. Please try your call again later.

  • David Nolan||

    What types of meals do they pay for now?

    This user does not engage in conversations with Michael Hihn. Please try your call again later.

    Does he call put your obvious bullshit, too?

  • hello.||

    With the same grammatical errors and sentence structures. It's remarkably really.

  • ColoradoKook||

    This user does not engage in conversations with Michael Hihn. Please try your call again later.

  • vek||

    I knew Gillespie was a total stereotypical tool shed, limp wristed, smug, coastal fag... But now I find out he's a vegan too! LOL I guess I shouldn't be surprised...

    And we wonder what's going wrong with libertarianism!

  • David Nolan||

    For 50 years now, we tolerate anything ... by anyone ... at any time ... unless they seek to impose views by force, or deny equal treatment under the law.

    Voltaire celebrated the moral premise of defending even those we disagree with. So we even defend your right to attack us, while we despise everything you stand for. Jesus Christ explained the same principle to stone-throwers such as yourself, and your ilk,.

    It's called tolerance. Why is that so hated and despised by snowflakes, both left and right?

  • Giant Realistic Flying Tiger||

    Who is this "we," exactly? You claim to speak for a group, but provide no evidence that such backing exists. Who exactly are "we," and why are none of those "we" backing you up when people argue with you? After all, if there were multiple people backing you up, you'd expect them to join in defending you. So tell me, who is this "we?"

  • mtrueman||

    "So tell me, who is this "we?""

    Who wants to know?

  • David Nolan||

    Who is this "we," exactly?

    Who is he talking about, the person I responded to?

    I explained a core libertarian principle, for about 50 years now. Do you really need evidence that libertarianism exists, or are you attacking tolerance as a value?

  • Giant Realistic Flying Tiger||

    I'm saying that you frequently invoke a "we" in your statements, but you never state who this "we" is. This implies that your statements have broad support, but you never point to who exactly is supporting your statements.

  • Giant Realistic Flying Tiger||

    So, tell me clearly: who is this "we?"

  • David Nolan||

    So, tell me clearly: who is this "we?"

    I already did.

  • David Nolan||

    I explained a core libertarian principle, for about 50 years now. Do you really need evidence that libertarianism exists, or are you attacking tolerance as a value?

    I answered you. Your turn to answer me,

  • hello.||

    You really should considering killing yourself for the benefit of American taxpayers Mikey. Don't be a freeloader.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    hello is an obvious Trumpster.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Not only is he abusing the name of David Nolan but also Jesus now. I don't think Jesus was a libertarian anyway. Render unto Caesar and all that.

    Who's the next target going to be, the Buddah maybe?

  • David Nolan||

    Jesus Christ explained the same principle to stone-throwers such as yourself, and your ilk,.

    I don't think Jesus was a libertarian anyway.

    You missed the point. He opposed your aggression in the passage I mentioned. He also opposed your intolerance.

    Render unto Caesar and all that.

    Ayn Rand, perhaps the best-known atheist of her time, agreed. Only a minority of libertarians are anarchists. And this atheist sees that you understand Christ as poorly as you understand libertarians,

  • Hank Phillips||

    No libertarians are anarchists. An anarchist is (was) a communist a second before shooting or throwing a bomb at someone important. Once international socialists realized that libertarian spoiler votes could repeal and reverse their taxes and controls accumulated since 1850, the least employable among them were sent to infiltrate the LP and redefine anarchist the way conservatives and other looters have redefined "liberal." Nowadays it's nationalsocialists infiltrating to turn us into "warriors for the babies."

  • David Nolan||

    GREAT satire! Ayn Rand was a stealth communist!!

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Goddamn you make me want to piss myself.

  • Mock-star||

    "For 50 years now, we tolerate anything ... by anyone ... at any time ... unless they seek to impose views by force, or deny equal treatment under the law."

    Including owning any sort of weapon, right? Because as we all know, simply possessing/owning something in no way forces anything upon anyone else, correct?

  • David Nolan||

    That's not how rights work.
    Try a less obvious mind game.

  • Mock-star||

    Im not good at mind games at all. We had one guy once that was such a dick that he got (per CATO) 91% of the population to reject him. Now THAT had to be some real mind fuckery to get that many people to reject him.

    He was also really bad at math and always had some retarded equation. Consider yourself lucky to have never met him.

  • David Nolan||

    Im not good at mind games at all.

    You sure fucked up this one!

    We had one guy once that was such a dick that he got (per CATO) 91% of the population to reject him. Now THAT had to be some real mind fuckery to get that many people to reject him.

    Let's see it I got this write.
    1) Cato says 59%b of Americans (now 60%+) self-define as fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
    2) But 91% of THEN reject THEMSELVES?

    It's generally unwise to lie so blatantly about a Cato survey most of us are familiar with,

    He was also really bad at math and always had some retarded equation.

    Since you reveal your ignorance, and/or hatred of libertarianism, I'll assume you mean the liberty equation of the other David Nolan (party founder), which has been a staple for over 40 years..

    Left - Right = Zero
    7th grade algebra tells is this means that left and right are of equal value whatever that value is.
    Here are a few examples. Note this is true at every value selected.
    5 - 5 = 0
    55 - 55 = 0
    555 - 555 = 0
    5,555-5,555 = 0
    55,555 - 55,555 = 0
    555,555 - 555,555 = 0
    5,555,555 - 5,555,555 = 0

    Feel free to try any number you choose, And, no disrespect intended, you might wish to reconsider who the retarded one is (if anyone). I'll assume you're either right or left, and object being equated to a tribe whose EVERY member you HATE. That is WHY Left - Right = Zero

  • Mock-star||

    Oh you met him then. Yeah that guy that used to post here was a real dickhole. Be glad you never have to put up with him.

  • David Nolan||

    Whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh

  • vek||

    David Nolan (or is it Hihn???), I'm on board buddy! I don't actually mind gay people, I've just decided to start calling things gay/faggy again out of spite for the PC brigade.

    As far as things go, I don't think there is much of anything that should be illegal... But there is nothing in libertarianism that says I have to LIKE anything, or that I can't even HATE something that I think is stupid.

    I think vegans are stupid. It's NOT good for you, and it's not going to make shit all of difference either. So you're basically just getting less than optimal health, and less awesome tasting food, in exchange for feeling smug. Typical proggie thinking there.

    Gillespie is a perfect example of a lame aging hipster who doesn't even realize he's actually NOT hip, but is in fact a tool. His brand of Cosmotarianism is exactly what is wrong with most libertarians today. Being tolerant of all thing as far as laws go is fine, but the truth is to have a functional society people MUST have social standards for some things. One can argue about what standards to have, but no standards does not work... That's why our society is falling apart.

    For instance tolerating people shitting in the street is not good. We're that Woke in Seattle now though! If anything as a society we need LESS tolerance of things that fuck up the world.

  • David Nolan||

    out of spite for the PC brigade.

    By proving them correct about you?

    in exchange for feeling smug.

    The same way you feel smug with the same tactics, just different values?

    His brand of Cosmotarianism

    All libertarians are cosmotarian, except a tiny fringe of alt-right, like Ron Paul, who actively promote government oppression of their disfavored groups, AND TAX CUTS! . You just ACT like a hate-spewing bigot, to spite the PC crowd, and libertarians.

    Now you reveal your evil

    to have a functional society people MUST have social standards for some things. One can argue about what standards to have, but no standards does not work.

    It works quite fine for the vast majority of Americans. You people can TRY recreating the barbarities of a New Inquisition, which is now driving Christians out of the "religion": to get back to Christ (pray in a closet).

    I lived in Seattle (Tukwila) from 1990-2005, a place that must enrage you -- who claims Gillespie defends shiting in streets. That's shameful of you, and why a growing majority ignores your version of Taliban.

    I'll defend you being and talking as a bigot. Because individual liberty,. But if you try to impose it on me by force, I have a right to kill you. Self defense.

  • vek||

    You are Hihn! He lived in Tukwila too. I like that you change up your writing style just a bit with this sock puppet. This one is actually better IMO. More coherent.

    As far as things go, I live in the real world and accept that social standards, when not imposed by the government, have to come from people shaming or accepting things. Nick and his ilk along with the progs have spent decades trying to shame people into not holding many views, and it has largely worked. Everything from it being fine to go out and get fucked by 100 guys having a train pulled on you, to doing shit tons of drugs being a good idea.

    I'm no prude... I've had plenty of pre-marital sex, and even experimented with drugs... GASP! But there's a difference between tolerating something being legal, accepting things, and PUSHING things. Cosmotarians and progs PUSH a lot of things that are frankly bad for most people. I used to be the same way, but I have learned a thing or two as I have aged. Pushing bad behavior is not a good idea.

    I don't want any laws, but I am now all for shaming people who wrong think. It worked for the progs wrecking a functional society, perhaps we can have a functional society again by doing it in reverse?

  • David Nolan||

    That's where I met him, when he ran the Libertarian Party in Washington. He came in the late 90s or so. Libertarians, the people you despise, fiscally conservative and socially liberal. -- who now have more than twice the percentage of Americans as your vanishing tribe.

  • vek||

    I see. So you're either:

    1. Making this up to try to protect the integrity of the sock puppet

    2. Are legitimately split personality

    3. OR a very distant 3rd possibility which is that you're a human who also lived in Tukwila, and happens to have the exact same personality as Hihn, use the same phrases, etc.

    I don't know which possibility is worst!

  • Tony||

    A vegan whose signature look is a leather jacket?

  • vek||

    I know right! He must not REALLY care about the poor animals being murdered to make him look cool! I myself love leather too, but I don't pretend to mind animals being killed for my gain/satisfaction.

  • Hank Phillips||

    How dare those corporate pigs reduce my beef and bacon expenses! Owsley will hear of this, and then you'll see...

  • dexter||

    It's not because, in the libertarian philosophy, it's acceptable to have a private company coercing their employee into adopting some ridiculous moral choice, that it's not a libertarian nightmare.
    A libertarian nightmare is where everybody start to reduce the freedom, and especially freedom of opinion of other when they can do it within the law.
    You can think that Google or facebook are completly in their own right to police speech in their platform, and still think it's moraly disgusting to do it.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    So, fundamental rights are "morally disgusting" to you.
    And you say it in public!

  • vek||

    Are you retarded?

    Somebody should be free to shove a bowling pin up their ass... But you're not obligated to think it's awesome!

    Facebook and Google should be legally allowed to have politically biased censorship on their platforms... But the fact that they're explicitly censoring conservative and libertarian values is VERY TROUBLING. Keep in mind Google and Facebook have more money and real world power than many countries on earth.

    Tyranny isn't only possible at the hands of the government. The British East India company was technically a private firm with a special business license, that brutally ruled over entire countries.

  • David Nolan||

    Are you retarded?

    He said "morally" disgusting.

    . But the fact that they're explicitly censoring conservative and libertarian values

    That's a lie. And you have managed to both attack and defend the same principle, in a single post..

    Tyranny isn't only possible at the hands of the government

    You also don't know that a government-granted monopoly is .... they're ALL "technically" private firms.

    Keep in mind Google and Facebook have more money and real world power than many countries on earth.

    Just like a proggie you are!
    Manipulated by hysteria.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    We need to be real libertarians. Like the great Ron Paul, and his wonderful son, Rand.

  • vek||

    LOL

    1. If you are so blind you can't see that Facebook, Google, etc NOT TO MENTION the traditional media are all completely in the bag for leftist views... I don't even know what to say. When they censor the crap out of any right leaning stuff like crazy, and let leftists calling for mass murder not be censored... Yeah, that's bias buddy. This has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. When ANTIFA is legitimate discourse in their eyes, and people saying we should enforce our immigration laws in moderately strong language is unacceptable... That's bias.

    2. Putting conspiracy theories aside neither Facebook or Google is in a government granted monopoly position. They're not the railroad or Ma Bell of yesteryear! But even without that, they have in fact become effective monopolies in their respective areas. I'm loathe to want to do anything about it as a libertarian leaner... However I can and will at least point out how dangerous they can be with the massive power they wield.

    3. Again, one can hold a position that somebody should be free to do something, while also hating that thing that they are doing. That's where I'm at with Google/Facebook and plenty of other things in the world. It's not being a hypocrite, it's actually just standing by your principles.

  • David Nolan||

    Putting conspiracy theories aside neither Facebook or Google is in a government granted monopoly position

    British East India was, which YOU brought up. DUH

    it's actually just standing by your principles.

    By denying your own example of tyranny, you ran like hell away from any principles.

  • vek||

    Ahh, you hadn't made it clear WTF you were talking about. They were. But Standard Oil wasn't. Should it have been broken up? What about other monopolies? I've always been torn on the subject of monopoly laws, because I don't like the idea of the government breaking up highly successful businesses... Yet I can see the practical downsides monopolies CAN have in some situations.

    Situations like Facebook ALL OF A SUDDEN after the election cutting traffic referrals to conservative news outlets by tweaking their algorithms, MAINSTREAM ONES I might add, by over 90%. Google/FB etc have become de facto monopolies in areas where they wield massive influence. If they are used for evil ends, that kinda worries me.

    If the Koch Brothers had bought out FB when it was smaller, like Rupert Murdoch did with Myspace, and was cutting traffic to the NYT or WAPO by 90%+ out of the blue, would liberals not be right to call out that bias? I think they would be very correct in calling out such bias. So since they're targetting conservative and libertarian leaning people/companies I see no problem calling them out for being biased, ESPECIALLY since they're claiming to be neutral. Either come out and admit you're a shill, or actually be non biased. The lying is what pisses me off the most.

  • David Nolan||

    Ahh, you hadn't made it clear WTF you were talking about.

    (smirk) I quoted your own words, so, having admitted to were wrong, you reverse yourself on monopolies and charge off in a new diversion. Always one more myth. An ever-higher level of tribal hysteria.

    My work here is done.

  • vek||

    Hihn, you can't put stuff like "(smirk)" in your posts if you're going to try to pretend to be somebody else! It's too much of a dead give away!

  • perlchpr||

    I think it's unfair, since if I'm in a situation like this, suddenly I have to order a steak at every company meal just to virtual signal in the other direction. And that shit's gonna get expensive.

  • hello.||

    "I think companies that live and express their commitments through work-space policies should be celebrated, even if the specific choices they make might alienate employees and customers," Reason Editor at Large Nick Gillespie told me by email this week

    Like a pizzeria that doesn't want to cater a theoretical gay wedding Nick? Like that you fucking bitch?

  • David Nolan||

    This deals with WeWorks' policy for its own employees.

    And no pizzeria should get a special exemption denied any other pizzeria. 14th Amendment.

  • Sparky Wilson||

    It's a crap scam of a company. They owe almost 18 billion, that's right "B", in back rent. They advertise as a company that caters to the tech market, but only 15% of their clientele is tech. Nothing this company had done had been good.

  • David Nolan||

    Their valuation is 21 billion (January 2018), that's right "B". Motley Fool.

    There is no $18 billion in back rent. $18 billion is FUTURE rent, more than 5 years out, Bloomberg "..."The company has committed to pay at least $5 billion in rent by 2022, with a further $13.2 billion due from 2023 onwards. "

    Nothing this company had done had been good.

    Business and investment media report the opposite. Reported as America's fastest growing startups, or among the fastest.

  • Lawn Darts||

    I'm waiting for the wailing and gnashing of teeth that occurs when vegetarians and vegans realize that plants are sentient too. And they are tearing them out of the ground-- and eating them alive!

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    I'm waiting for the wailing and gnashing of teeth

    So why did you go first?
    And so totally wacky?

  • Sandab||

    I'd encourage anyone to regularly honestly reevaluate their compensation and work environment to see how well it suits them and their lives, or if a competitor can offer a better deal. If the tradeoffs are better elsewhere... change employers. *shrug*

  • macsnafu||

    Vanity Fair must have gotten the message. The "libertarian nightmare" phrase is gone, and the article has been re-uploaded without that particular comment.

  • DaneelOlivaw||

    I have to resist the temptation to eat more meat and encourage others, when I see primitive mind control attempts like this.

  • Galane||

    A company owned and run by people too stupid to understand basic biology deserves to go out of business.

  • ||

    Wait wait wait, so perfectly ok to eat red meats, pork and poultry are banned, but alcohol which destroys your body (albeit perhaps slowly) is not?

    What the fuck is wrong with this company?

  • vek||

    Prog logic: All that is good is bad, and all that is bad is good.

    Although in all fairness scientific studies have shown small amounts of alcohol daily, up to the point of overlapping with being a mild maintenance alcoholic, is actually good for you overall. It's good for the heart and circulatory system, or so they say.

  • RachelS||

    Being Libertarian and being vegetarian are in complete alignment with each other.

    I have been libertarian since I was 16 years old,
    based on the core value that in being libertarian-
    I have the freedom to do what I want as long as I am NOT INFLICTING on others.

    If you do anything that contributes the loss of freedom of another, including eating meat, you are not a true libertarian.

    WeWork has the complete right to put their money (or in this case to not put their money) towards things that they believe in. As it is the right of their employees to chose to work for them, should they agree or disagree with their values.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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