MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Ludwig von Mises Approved of Birth Control, But So What?

The distant spheres of people deeply interested in birth control and Ludwig Von Mises met violently when blogger "Rortybomb" (Mike Konczal of the Roosevelt Institute) did some libertarian-baiting by claiming that libertarians should be against mandated insurance that covers birth control because Ludwig Von Mises didn't approve of birth control. (I am not a regular reader of his blog, so sophisticated strategic ironies that may or may not have been at work will zoom over my head.)

In the first place, Mr. Bomb's supposition is openly based on some intellectual sleight of hand to begin with, taking a stated opposition to "free love" as an alleged tool of socialism and extending it to birth control:

I think it is fair to lump “free love” as he means it with birth control.  He writes Socialism in 1922, a year after Margaret Sanger founds the group that becomes Planned Parenthood (which she does after a decade of writing sex education for women columns in a variety of socialist and anarchist magazines while trying to evade arrest).  He doesn’t mention Sanger but he’s pretty obsessed with this book Woman and Socialism (“no other German socialist book was more widely read or more effective as propaganda than Bebel’s Woman and Socialism, which is dedicated above all to the message of free love”).

Let’s get some more quotes onto the internets and then encourage our libertarian friends to have at it.  Help that whole fusionist project by spending 2012 finding increasingly esoteric ways of denouncing birth control alongside the religious conservatives – the future of private property depends on it!

That daring leap was dead wrong, which Rortybomb later tweetmitted. See this, from Mises' longest book, Human Action:

Those fighting birth control want to eliminate a device indispensable for the preservation of peaceful human cooperation and the social division of labor. Where the average standard of living is impaired by the excessive increase in population figures. irreconcilable conflicts of interests arise. Each individual is again a rival of all other individuals in the struggle for survival. The annihilation of rivals is the only means of increasing one's own well-being. The philosophers and theologians who assert that birthcontrol is contrary to the laws of God and Nature refuse to see things as they really are. Nature straitens the material means required for the improvement of human well-being and survival. As natural conditions are, man has only the choice between the pitiless war of each against each or social cooperation. But social cooperation is impossible if people give rein to the natural impulse of proliferation. In restricting procreation man adjusts himself to the natural conditions of his existence. The rationalization of the sexual passions is an indispensable condition of civilization and societal bonds. Its abandonment would in the long run not increase but decrease the numbers of those surviving, and would render life for everyone as poor and miserable as it was many thousands of years ago for our ancestors. [p. 673] 

Thanks to Gene Callahan for being the first to get that quote into the record in response to Rortybomb.

And Mises was a general fan of the basic feminist message, as Rortybomb himself quotes, from Mises' early opus Socialism:

So far as Feminism seeks to adjust the legal position of woman to that of man, so far as it seeks to offer her legal and economic freedom to develop and act in accordance with her inclinations, desires, and economic circumstances—so far it is nothing more than a branch of the great liberal movement, which advocates peaceful and free evolution. 

Mises does go on to address "natural barriers" that socialists want to overturn, and doubtless some of his own personal opinions about what those natural barriers might be would differ from moderns, liberal or conservative, which is exactly why Rortybomb's entire implied point doesn't make any sense to begin with. Those concerns are far more matters of opinion, not political philosophy, and in no sense should bind even those who have sworn fealty to Mises' general views on economics and liberty. (For example, I'm quite the Misesian in most questions of politics and economics, but can imagine an intelligent conservative argument that the "rationalization of the sexual passions" is in some sense harmed by birth control, though not in the specific procreational sense he is addressing specifically.)

But let's address the larger point, if there is one, besides that atop all of our heads for even talking about this: That polemical points can rightly be earned laying some judgment, whether real or imagined, of an intellectual founding father or influence on a political movement or tendency on to the backs of its younger followers--either to mock them or to insist that, no, this is really what their intellectual mission is: not to promote liberty, but to work for whatever Ludwig Von Mises liked or didn't like.

It is interesting, for those interested in intellectual history, that Mises saw free love as part of some larger socialist mission to destroy the family. But for the libertarian the relevant question is, is this voluntary or not, does this infringe on anyone's life, liberty, or property or not? "Anything that's peaceful," baby, as Leonard Read, one of Mises' great popular disciples in Amerca, wrote.

Thus, there's a libertarian case to be made against forcing anyone to cover any specific medical care, birth control or whatever, in the insurance deals they make with their clients. But it has nothing to do with whether Ludwig von Mises was comfortable with free love, or birth control, or with catheters, or blood transfusions, or any other specific medical procedure that might or might not become a political controversy when the government tried to force people to sell insurance only on the condition that that insurance cover that procedure or medication's use.

That said, I won't even do the nyaa-nyaa-nyaa Keynes was into eugenics!

Much on Mises and more in my very long book Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the American Libertarian Movement.

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.

  • ||

    "It is interesting, for those interested in intellectual history, that Mises saw free love as part of some larger socialist mission to destroy the family."

    It's also interesting that critics of artificial contraception see the latter as the handmaid of free love.

    Mises was thinking in Malthusian terms, not in terms of making love not war, man. The population issue today seems to be not enough people, at least not enough of wage-earning age to support our social-welfare structures.

  • Zeb||

    And those problems are highly localized in the weird, rich countries. There are plenty of people in the world.

  • Rather||

    The CC is defense of religion is cardinal but despite the popularity of birth control; the WH's slight of hand does not change the fact that they are interfering with religious freedom, or that it is a trial balloon for future impedance

  • ||

    What, you didn't think I dug some Human Action?

  • ||

    Here's the thing about the combination of mandatory medical insurance and covarage mandates.

    They act, effectively as socialized provision of whatever freebie the President wishes to distribute to the populations.

    Of vcourse they aren't "free", since they will eventially be reflected in the cost of insurance. But in essence, everyone will be required to fund universal distribution of birth control by means of paying their mandatory insurance premiums.

    The beauty of it (or the horror, depending on your point of view), is that it allows the president to create these entitlements by executive order. No act of congress authorized free universal distribution of birth control, it simply happened because the president now has the power to order insurance companies to cover whatever he likes, and everyone is required to pay premiums to pay for it.

    It completely circumvents the legislative process and allows the executive branch to distribute goodies without any spending authorization to do so from Congress.

  • ||

    Obamacare isn't quite the Enabling Act, but it's damn close.

  • ||

    Is Obamacare any worse than other forms of socialized medicine?

    Once you accept that society should bear the costs of healthcare, you accept that society has a controlling interest in individuals' behavior. You could argue that the control only extends to those activities which affect the individuals' health, but one could argue virtually everything - from food intake to exercise to one's outlook on life - has some effect and is therefore subject to regulation.

    Maybe I'm paranoid, but I don't think it will be long before mandatory drug testing is tied to our healthcare.

  • ||

    I think you'd be a fool not to expect it.

  • SIV||

    Maybe I'm paranoid, but I don't think it will be long before mandatory drug testing is tied to our healthcare.

    Winning the Future!

    I wonder what we'll be required to test positive for first?

  • ||

    I wonder what we'll be required to test positive for first?

    I'll say "Hope".

  • ||

    I heard Dental exams for all.

  • ||

    My tooth was hurtin this morning so I drank some moonshine.

  • ||

    "You could argue that the control only extends to those activities which affect the individuals' health, but one could argue virtually everything - from food intake to exercise to one's outlook on life - has some effect and is therefore subject to regulation."

    Could? You can bet your ass, they WILL. It's gonna be a brave new world!

  • ||

    Can't wait to hear the screeching and wailing on the left when Pres. Santorum decrees that birth control will not be covered.

    Holy fuck is socialized medicine a stupid idea. Anything the feds control ends up being politicized.

  • ||

    Bet it will cover therapy to fix the gay though. That will really send them off the edge. It would actually be entertaining to watch even if it is sad.

  • ||

    "The people at Fabulous Episcopal Charities, Inc. are upset because they say their religious freedom is violated. But all they have to do is buy insurance for their employees, and the insurance company can provide reparative (gay-curing) therapy at no extra cost. Where's the religious freedom issue?"

  • GLG||

    Hey! They're taking away the children's rights to access our educational material as well!

  • ||

    Such programs would totally gut the Episcopal Church's professional class.

  • ||

    You know, I am not getting laid nearly enough, and that most certainly endangers my heterosexuality. Shouldn't there be a provision for some "therapy time" with a therapist to keep "up" my heterosexulity with ...uh heterosexual sex??? Now, no one should have to pay for my sex - the insurance company would provide it "free"

  • ||

    Personally, I think that all insurance companies should be required to cover sex therapy for men who have micro-penises.

    It sounds reasonable enough. Why should men with tiny penises be forced to endure a life of shame and humiliation and virginity? How dare these religious nazis take away the opportunity to lie with a prostitute from these poor men?

  • ||

    Also, coverage should extend to medicinal coke too.

  • ||

    I keep waiting for the day when an elected Republican finally realizes that all the wasteful spending is going to his enemies and all spending cuts he can think to make are therefore in his own best interest. The only people who'd truly suffer from spending cuts are Democrats, and they deserve to suffer.

  • ||

    nah...most elected Repubs see their election as a chance to rut in the federal trough. The ones genuinely interested in cuts are ostracized.

  • ||

    I suspect a more informed reasonite could provide several examples of GOP candidates who owe their jobs to the spending they direct to their district.

  • ||

    "Anything the feds control ends up being politicized."

    That's a tautology. You put anything under the control of politicians, it becomes a political issue. ?How great depends on how much controversy there is over it. Saying something is "politcized" is usually trying to stifle debate.

  • ||

    It completely circumvents the legislative process and allows the executive branch to distribute goodies without any spending authorization to do so from Congress.

    ---------------
    Just another day at the office.

  • ||

    "The beauty of it (or the horror, depending on your point of view), is that it allows the president to create these entitlements by executive order. No act of congress authorized free universal distribution of birth control, it simply happened because the president now has the power to order insurance companies to cover whatever he likes, and everyone is required to pay premiums to pay for it."

    Along with:
    "Documents released in a classic Friday afternoon news dump show that labor unions representing 543,812 workers received waivers from President Barack Obama‘s signature legislation since June 17, 2011."
    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/01.....z1mJjYyY2D

    Yes, we have a nation of laws, assuming the king decides to whom the law applies.
    According to recent reports, in No Cal, you can buy a place at the table for $35K to petition the lord for special dispensation.

  • ||

    If the mandate fails (or is too narrow), I think an equal protection suit could work against the waiver provision. And if that succeeds but still doesn't kill the law, it might at least lead to enough parties being interested in ending it to seal the deal.

  • ||

    It is my understanding that the waivers are temporary. Unless they intend to extend them or renew them indefinitely, those parties are going to have to bite the bullet sooner or later.
    The monster that the left has created is going to eat them.

  • ||

    Thank you! That is exactly what the debate should be about, and it's pitiful that Team Red is using this situation instead to stir up some culture-war, war-on-religion bullshit.

    Who cares about birth control? One mandate is just as bad as the other. It's the implied legislative authority allowing these mandates that should be focused on.

  • ||

    Yes, legislative authority with an entirely new spending pool - mandatory insurance premiums. No need to raise taxes or have a budget at all.

  • SIV||

    Who gives a shit if they use culture war to get the fucking governments hands off something?

    Oh yeah, cosmotarians.

  • ||

    Except that no broader lesson will be learned, because the culture war is always about getting power and using it to push your agenda on everyone else, not about the nature of power itself.

  • ||

    The Catholic bishops are arguing the mandate violates First Amendment rights. How does that equal "culture war"?

  • ||

    Your utilitarianism will result in the same culture war used to get the same government's hands into something. It's the same goddamn reason why their hands are already into so many things.

  • ||

    Because the culture war obscures the larger power that is inherent in the individual mandate.

    Once people can be compelled to buy things under the commerce clause, it become a mechanism for money to be funneled in any direction the government wishes, quite external to the normal bugetary process. The state could just use purchase mandates to subsidize the industries it wants to help.

    Obamacare actually goes a step beyond this and allows the president to create new entitlements just by mandating that insurance cover something.

    No taxes were raised to pay for free birth control. No monies were allocated by Congress. Birth control suddenly became an entitlement because Obama said so.

  • ||

    And when President Santorum uses this power to mandate insurance companies DON'T carry birth control, I doubt many liberals would see the irony in the previous administration's power grab.

  • ||

    Many will....if zero is many.

  • ||

    Mises has some very interesting things to say. Better bring the tar and feathers:

    "There is no human law to prevent the woman who looks for happiness in a career from renouncing love and marriage. But those who do not renounce them are not left with sufficient strength to master life as a man may master it. It is the fact that sex possesses her whole personality, and not the facts of marriage and family, which enchains woman....

    "All mankind would suffer if woman should fail to develop her ego and be unable to unite with man as equal, freeborn companions and comrades.

    "To take away a woman's children and put them in an institution is to take away part of her life; and children are deprived of the most far-reaching influences when they are torn from the bosom of the family....

    "The evolution which has led from the principle of violence to the contractual principle has based these relations on free choice in love. The woman may deny herself to anyone, she may demand fidelity and constancy from the man to whom she gives herself. Only in this way is the foundation laid for the development of woman's individuality. By returning to the principle of violence with a conscious neglect of the contractual idea, Socialism, even though it aims at an equal distribution of the plunder, must finally demand promiscuity in sexual life."

    http://mises.org/books/sociali.....#_ednref13

  • ||

    Well, he's already "tarred and feathered" .. and so has just about every prominent libertarian by each other, so he's in good company

    Brian's mention of Leonard Read:
    But for the libertarian the relevant question is, is this voluntary or not, does this infringe on anyone's life, liberty, or property or not? "Anything that's peaceful," baby, as Leonard Read, one of Mises' great popular disciples in Amerca, wrote.

    Reminds me of: http://mises.org/daily/2602#_ftn3


    Things were completely different in the circle of his new friends. Many of the new people that came to Mises through his NYU seminar and FEE were even more libertarian than he was. Suddenly it was Mises who on several occasions turned out to represent the more statist position in his seminar. American libertarians such as Leonard Read and R.C. Hoiles placed great emphasis on the definition of political liberty in terms of non-initiation of force.

    [...]

    Another, even more substantial point of disagreement between Mises and many American libertarians was the question of democracy. Mises would come to taste the particular American flavor of hostility to democracy in a 1947 exchange of letters with Rose Wilder Lane.

    Eventually even Rothbard (and others, Walter Block, etc) disagreed with Mises and Hayek on a few issues. Straying further along into other Austrians, for example, even when Block strongly criticized Hayek (and Milton Friedman[1]), though in a fair, scholarly way, it is interesting that Hayek came to see the merits in Block's positions, as all derived from a single principle, when Hayek wrote one of the forwards to Block's book "Defending the Undefendable":


    Looking through Defending the Undefendable made me feel that I was once more exposed to the shock therapy by which, more than fifty years ago, the late Ludwig von Mises converted me to a consistent free market position. Even now I am occasionally at first incredulous and feel that “this is going too far,” but usually find in the end that you are right.

    Some may find it too strong a medicine, but it will still do them good even if they hate it. A real understanding of economics demands that one disabuses oneself of many dear prejudices and illusions. Popular fallacies in economics frequently express themselves in unfounded prejudices against other occupations, and in showing the falsity of these stereotypes you are doing a real service, although you will not make yourself more popular with the majority.

    -- F.A. von Hayek, Nobel Laureate
    Institut for Nationalökonomie
    Universität Salzburg

    In any case, most of this is irrelevant regarding the mandate (birth control strawman) issue but it's interesting history that's still ongoing. I think Jörg Guido Hülsmann put it best:


    Mises's American friends disagreed and the discussions and correspondence between them remained without conclusion. But the confrontation between the Austrian scholar and his American readers and disciples would be a driving force in the development of libertarian theory.

    .
    [1]Unfortunately Milton Friedman couldn't handle some of the heat it seems. Though I respect him and think he deserves credit for his work, of Block he wrote: ".. a piece written by a fanatic, not by a reasonable man"
    lol

  • ||

    Not really seeing much of a point here outside of stating the obvious.

  • ||

    Of course Keynes was into Eugenics. He was a big fan of Hitler until it became dangerous to his career to admit it.

    -jcr

  • ||

    So, for that matter, was Margaret Sanger and the rest of her genocidal brood. Granted, I'd probably be happier if her mother and the mothers of all the other mass-murdering fascists (such as this administration and all of its supporters) had used birth control, but that still doesn't mean I believe anyone should have to pay for anyone else's rubbers.

  • ||

    The real reason to say "So what?" is that whether or not Mises approved of "prophylactics" (as condoms were called back then) or any other form of birth control, he would never have approved of forcing anyone to buy them.

  • ||

    So I told Sir Henry Maine that socialism must finally demand promiscuity in sexual life, and Sir Henry Maine was like "don't be so paranoid, dude! What, do you think the government will force companies to provide prophylactics (directly or indirectly) to their unmarried employees? Ha, ha!"

  • ||

    A Letter To Our European Friends

    Incidentally, there's a balanced position that all of America's presidential candidates could take on the controversial abortion issue. If they want votes they shouldn't campaign to make abortion illegal or legal. They should campaign to make it retroactive. If a kid reaches 25 and he or she is still jobless, feckless, and sitting around Starbucks acting like a--no offense--European, then whack.

  • ||

    If we don't provide poor women with free contraception, those undesirables will breed and leave us with even more disgusting blacks, hispanics, and such. Gross! Oh wait, did I just type that out loud?

  • ||

    That's all right. I hate nigger babies too.

  • ||

  • ||

  • ||

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.co.....ding-list/

    "My sexual exploits with my neighborhood playmates continued. I lived a busy homosexual childhood, somehow managing to avoid venereal disease through all my toddler years. By first grade I was sexually active with many friends. In fact, a small group of us regularly met in the grammar school lavatory to perform fellatio on one another. A typical week’s schedule would be Aaron and Michael on Monday during lunch; Michael and Johnny on Tuesday after school; Fred and Timmy at noon Wednesday; Aaron and Timmy after school on Thursday. None of us ever got caught, but we never worried about it anyway. We all understood that what we were doing was not to be discussed freely with adults but we viewed it as a fun sort of confidential activity. None of us had any guilty feelings about it; we figured everyone did it. Why shouldn’t they?"

  • ||

    The fucking fuck?

  • ||

    Obama's "Safe Schools Czar"

  • GLSEN||

    The public school is for porn!
    The public school is for porn!
    Why you think them kids was born?
    Porn! Porn! Porn!

  • ||

    I knew that White Indian would eventually break down and admit to something like this.

    Son in this life you can't simply [GAMBOL] away from your past!

  • ||

    My reading of the chapter was that by "free love" Mises understood "outlaw marriage."

    The new social order will have no private property, now markets, and no marriage.

    The reason why this was a good idea was so women would be free to develop their personalities and individuality. Mises agreed that it was important that women be able to do that and that it is difficult, but that getting rid of marriage isn't a good idea.

    Make marriage a matter of contract between free individuals, and it is the least bad option.

    He was very explicitly against treating women as the property of their husbands. That sort of "patriarchy" was part of the "society of violence," that he rejected.

  • ||

    If rortybomb blogged this story, why did he "tweetmit" the correction. Why didn't he blogmit it?

  • Brian Doherty||

    he updated the post as well, see the link. I just wanted to say "tweetmitted" (and first saw the correction in a forwarded tweet).

  • ||

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.co.....ding-list/

    "Katie pulls her shorts off. She is wearing blue and white polka-dotted Hanes underwear, the kind that I have at home. They come in a three-pack with a matching blue pair and a matching white pair. She lies down on her floor and pulls her underwear off over her butt, and tells me to spank her because she’s the baby and I’m the mommy. It seems kind of weird and she yells at me to do it. Then she makes me be the baby and she spanks me, too. She tells me that I should learn how to French-kiss because boys always do that, so she kisses me and puts her tongue in my mouth. I roll my tongue hot-dog style, because that is fun.

    Her mommy drives me home, and in the backseat of her white car Katie Frenches me again.

    We are in second grade now, and Katie still makes me practice Frenching her."

  • ||

    Nice!

    Nice!

  • ||

    The fuck? It would be nice if a site I had actually heard of reported on this, because I'm sure as shit not going to try to verify it myself.

  • ||

    In 1913, the eugenicists succeeded in getting the Mental Incapacity Act through parliament. As a result, some 40,000 men and women were incarcerated without trial, having been deemed to fall into various specious categories such as ‘feeble-minded’ or ‘morally defective’. This latter description was used to imprison petty criminals, unmarried mothers or those displaying homosex-ual inclinations — all, allegedly, clear signs that they possessed the sort of defective genes believed to be conducive to pauperism.

    I wonder what Tony thinks of "progressivism" now.

  • ||

    tony pretty much swallows whatever his minders tell him to.

  • ||

    Feeble-minded people tend to do that.

    -jcr

  • ||

    Shithead "thinks" libertarians won't be satisfied until grannies and kids are dying in the streets!
    Don't bother shithead with facts.

  • ||

    Say what you will, but it looks like the Progressives were good at getting the rabble off the streets (and into a sterilization OR).

  • ||

    Actually, in NYC, the progressives were very good at putting the rabble *on* the streets.
    The progressives outlawed 'slum' housing, where all those 'rabble' found a place to sleep until they could afford better. And ran them into the streets in the process.
    Think of it as an early effort at "rent control"; making sure that really cheap places to live weren't available on the commercial market. You had to turn to the government for really rotten living quarters.

  • ||

    Yay libertarian contrarianism! Slums are good for the poor! A lack of contraception is good for women! Slavery was good for African-Americans!

  • Zeb||

    Oh for fucks sake. Slums are better than living on the street. Contraception is great, and people can figure out how to pay for it themselves. You are free to donate to planned parenthood if you are very concerned about people who have a harder time affording it. Slavery is the least libertarian thing possible to conceive of. Fuck off.

  • ||

    This is a compilation of footage from the start of the big Wisconsin labour protests last Feb. It's a powerful video and what these people have achieved over the last 12 months is pretty incredible.

    I don't think Scott Walker imagined that his attempt to destroy labour rights in his state would accidentally make him the biggest inadvertent organizer they have
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded

  • ||

    "I don't think Scott Walker imagined that his attempt to destroy labour rights..."

    I don't think you have a brain cell between your ears.
    What "rights" are being destroyed?

  • ||

    your equating of public union organizing as some sort of 'right' is bullshit. It's a privilege, and one not even FDR or George Meany thought public workers should ever have.

    If WI voters are stupid enough to subsidize the pensions of public workers who contribute next to nothing, they deserve what they get. Last election, however, enough folks saw the problem with that and put Walker in office.

  • ||

    wareagle|2.13.12 @ 9:57PM|#
    "your equating of public union organizing as some sort of 'right' is bullshit."

    Maybe picking of the nits, but disagreed. Anyone is welcome to organize with others in any form they please, so long as no one is harmed.
    They are also free to ask an employer to negotiate with that organization. And the employer is free to say "Fuck off".

  • ||

    good luck with that plan in the next union shop you run. Likewise, good luck being the guy who doesn't want to join the union. And if we're going to pick nits, perhaps the taxpayer is being harmed, certainly fiscally, and quite possibly practically when the cops decide to walk off the job for a day.

  • ||

    Please, please, please, officers, feel free to walk off the job for the day. I won't mind, you won't be hurting me, I promise.

  • ||

    No cops? That's awesome.

  • ||

    meh... that's what sick leave is for (sniffle)

  • ||

    Anyone is welcome to organize with others in any form they please, so long as no one is harmed.

    The taxpayers of Wisconsin have been grievously harmed for many years. I congratulate governor Walker for finally making an attempt to mitigate that harm.

    -jcr

  • ||

    It's gonna be funny when Walker beats the recall.

  • SIV||

    Maybe I'll postpone canceling my facebook account just to watch.

  • ||

    Oh, and I wasted a minute or two watching your drum-circle stupidity.
    NWS.

  • ||

    No shit.

    Apparently what these people have achieved over the last 12 months is mastering the noise making skills of a hyperactive four year old.

    And people say public employees are retards.

  • ||

    I suck donkey balls.

  • ||

    OT:
    My screen shows a plea to 'join in and keep the (EVIL!) Keystone pipeline from DEMOLISHING THE ENTIRE WORLD!'
    I, for one, am pleased Reason.com is able to suck money out of such whiners to keep this place working.
    It was tempting to send a "fuck you" message, but it required my email, and who needs hundreds of ignoratti plugging up the in-box.

  • ||

    Santorum's "yummy tears" daughter on the right: http://www.nationalreview.com/.....1312_A.jpg

  • ||

    I was really worried for a second that it was going to be the terminally ill one. And I think that says something about what I think of you people.

  • ||

    "It is interesting, for those interested in intellectual history, that Mises saw free love as part of some larger socialist mission to destroy the family. "

    I don't get that from the quote. It might be implied, but it could just as easily be construed as a criticism of selling an ideology with the promise of tail (that is, trying to use hormones and emotion to trump rationality in order to take advantage of people). Fortunately, leftists have long since abandoned that strategy out of respect for women.

    Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to OWS to look for some easy poli sci majors; after that, I heard that PETA's having a demonstration with naked models or something. Sweet.

  • ||

    "Fortunately, leftists have long since abandoned that strategy out of respect for women.
    Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to OWS to look for some easy poli sci majors; after that, I heard that PETA's having a demonstration with naked models or something. Sweet."

    That's GOOD!

  • ||

    That was a hell of a long post to say "Appeals to authority are meaningless."

  • ||

    hey, as a union member myself - i applaud walker

    granted, my state cop/firefighter retirement system is actually OVERFUNDED.

    as much as that boggles my mind, and i expect the state commissars to spend it on options to buy future whitney houston live concert albums... well, it is what it is

  • ||

    I bet your wife, Morgan Fairchild, agrees.

  • ||

    drug abuse down by 1/2 10 yrs after drug decrim!!!

    take THAT drug warriors

    (and also perfect is the enemy of the good ninnies who won't stand for anything less than full legalization. incrementalism BITCHES!!!)

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/er.....-portugal/

  • ||

    It is an incredulous thing that when someone says "I am against the government mandating coverage for things like contraceptives", the progs think "Why are you against contraceptives?" is a killer retort.

    The old sayong "Everything that is premitted will be mandatory" is their guiding principle rather than an absurdity.

  • ||

    I thought it was "Everything not required will be forbidden"?

  • ||

    Lets hit it dude.

    www.Dot-Privacy.tk

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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