MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Will President Trump Be Good For Libertarians? (A New Reason Podcast)

Nick Gillespie, Katherine Mangu-Ward, and Elizabeth Nolan Brown discuss.

Libertarians are able "to grapple with [Trump's victory] more quickly because we're used to despair," says Reason's Katherine Mangu-Ward. "We never wake up after election day and say, 'the brave new future delights me!'"

In our latest podcast, Mangu-Ward, Nick Gillespie, and Elizabeth Nolan Brown discuss Trump's big win. An obvious takeaway is that libertarians were right to be worried about the expansion of executive power under Obama. (Should they resist the impulse to gloat?) Elizabeth Nolan Brown talks about her recent piece on why Clinton lost, and how the results from last two presidential elections contradict claims that Trump voters are all secret racists. Was it actually a backlash against political correctness that got Trump elected? In the end, did Gary Johnson do well or disappoint?

Listen to the conversation below—or better yet subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

Don't miss a single Reason podcast or video! Subscribe, rate, and review!

Follow us at Soundcloud.

Subscribe to our video channel at iTunes.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

(Photo By Michael Vadon (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)], via Wikimedia Commons)

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.

  • SugarFree||

    10 HA-
    20 GOTO 10

  • robc||

    Dude. Even BASIC gave up line numbers 30 years ago.

    Also, GOTO? Ugh.

  • robc||

  • Lee Genes||

    Sug's still using his TI-99/4A to post.

  • SugarFree||

    58008

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    +1 Barney, ND

  • some guy||

    ::Takes a screen capture, pastes it into paint and rotates 180::

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    DECLARE @list TABLE (id int, item varchar(255))
    INSERT INTO @list (id, item)
    VALUES (1, 'HA!'), (2, 'HA!'), (3, 'HA!'), (4, 'HA!'), (5, 'HA!')

    SELECT
    ISNULL([1], '') +
    ISNULL([2], '') +
    ISNULL([3], '') +
    ISNULL([4], '') +
    ISNULL([5], '') as result
    FROM
    @list
    PIVOT
    (
    MIN(item)
    FOR id IN ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5])
    ) pvt

  • tarran||

    That's not an infinite loop.

  • SugarFree||

    Ah, yeah, son. DEATF got served!

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    It was only worth five has.

  • ||

    I see you've met some of my colleagues. When you're a DBA, every problem looks like a database problem.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    USE master
    IF EXISTS(select * from sys.databases where name='Serfdom')
    DROP DATABASE Serfdom

    CREATE DATABASE Liberty

    GO

  • Ted S.||

    Did you name your kid Little Bobby Tables?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Short answer: No. Long answer: Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

    Unless you're the kind of libertarian who likes to feel superior in your countrymen's defeat of liberty. Then yes.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    Well I don't feel superior, but I've never laughed for 2 days straight before, so I can say he has been good for me.

    ---from the inner bowels of progland.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Unfortunately, we can't live on progtard tears alone. Been a nice bender though.

  • RBS||

    Yeah. I had to go back to doing actual work today. Hopefully, at least one of these foreclosures will be served upon some dejected proggie and make their week just a little bit worse.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Hopefully, at least one of these foreclosures will be served upon some dejected proggie and make their week just a little bit worse.

    Hopefully AmSoc.

  • some guy||

    but I've never laughed for 2 days straight before

    Me too. I finally petered out last night around bed time, which was good because the laughter kept me up most of the previous night.

  • anticollective||

    Rand Paul is excited about working with Trump and the Republican controlled Congress to roll back the worst excesses of the Obama administration. All libertarians should be.

  • Pay up, Palin's Buttplug!||

    I'm worried about the worst excesses of the Republican administrations. All libertarians should be.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    "to grapple with [Trump's victory] more quickly because we're used to despair"

    We spawned Steve Smith...we revel in it...

  • SugarFree||

    STEVE SMITH has existed since the morning of the world and shall exist until the last star falls from the heavens. Although STEVE SMITH has taken the form of STEVE SMITH, he is all STEVE SMITH's as he is none. Therefore, he is STEVE SMITH.

  • WTF||

    STEVE SMITH RAPE THE ALPHA AND OMEGA! STEVE SMITH RAPE THE ARCH OF TIME!

  • SugarFree||

    STEVE SMITH THE SASQUATCH ON EDGE OF FOREVER!

  • WTF||

    STEVE SMITH GO BACK AND RAPE HITLER!

  • Citizen X||

    ALL RAPESQUATCH RAPE HITLER ON FIRST TRIP BACK IN TIME. IT COMMON MISTAKE.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    Giuliani. Gingrich. Christie.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    Sounds like the worst sleaveball lawfirm ever.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    Slaveball? Nice.

  • ||

    Palmeiri, Podesta, Bill.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

  • Thomas O.||

    Yeah, the AG position should be of special concern to us. Anyone but Crackdown Christie.

  • BigT||

    Huey, Duey, Louie?

    Larry, Curly, Moe?

  • AlmightyJB||

  • GILMORE™||

    OU is Okalhoma.

    The Ohio University is referred to as "That bunch of drunks over there"

  • GILMORE™||

    doh, my bad.

    not state

  • robc||

    Ohio was a university before Columbus was a city.

  • GILMORE™||

    For some reason, frank zappa's comment re =

    "You can't be a country unless you have a football team, a beer, and an airline"

    ...is bouncing around in my head.

    I want to suggest "Ohio isn't a real state" somehow, but they certainly have a lot of the first 2. This has always summed up my pov.

  • AlmightyJB||

    We hold our own in Columbus. And I helped.

    http://nbc4i.com/2016/11/10/co.....y-in-ohio/

  • GILMORE™||

    I'm curious to see how much more-broadly they could possibly have defined sexual-violence/assault. Even the CDC couldn't get to 80%, and they included "unwanted facebook posts"/Texts as a form of sexual-harassment.

    Its got to be basically "someone looked at you"

    oh = "......ranging from unwelcome verbal comments"

    You'd think maybe that advocacy groups might start to realize that the "Casting too-wide a net" strategy isn't really all its cracked up to be. They must be desperate for funding.

  • Zeb||

    If you include unwanted touching that could be construed as sexual, who hasn't experienced sexual misconduct?

  • SugarFree||

    GILMORE's hugs... um... linger.

  • GILMORE™||

    In my country, it is normal to grasp the buttocks as a gesture of goodwill.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    I didn't know you were Greek.

  • some guy||

    Everyone has been hugged by that one weird uncle / family friend against their will. But enough about Crazy Uncle Joe...

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    When I hug people, I like to cup the back of their head with one hand and apply gentle downward pressure as we separate.

  • C. Anacreon||

    Your hugs sound like Heimlich maneuvers.

  • Microaggressor||

    unwanted facebook posts
    I'm being assaulted as we speak.

  • Zeb||

    82% of the 10% or so of the student body who chose to respond to the survey. I think there might be a little selection bias in there.

  • ||

    "Of the 1,350 students who completed the survey, 82 percent of them said they had experienced some kind of sexual misconduct while at Ohio University."

    Bullshit.

  • Zeb||

    Indeed. By their broad definition, I can't believe it's not 100%.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    I'm getting yelled at by my liberal and conservative friends...40 more years in the desert for me...

  • Hugh Akston||

    What did you do?

  • Swiss Servator||

    Came out as a libertarian?

  • SimonD||

    I'm not really getting too much of either, but most of my right-leaning friends were Never-Trumpers, and most of my left-leaning friends are Bernie Bros who went to Jill Stein. So my Gary Johnson vote didn't really bother anyone (or didn't bother anyone whose opinion mattered).

  • Hamster of Doom||

  • Lee Genes||

    The one on the left has hope in his soul?

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    And the one on the right has soap in her hole?

  • Zeb||

    I don't get it. Don't we still have both? Or have Clinton supporters all killed themselves?

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Huh.

    Well, it's two different Bloomberg covers side by side, and one representative figure has his tongue out and is pointing while the other representative figure is a young female, face uplifted toward heaven with hands clasped over heart.

    The juxtaposition seemed broadly readable, but clearly this was incorrect.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Forgot the punchline,

    Media bias, brah.

  • Zeb||

    Maybe it's because I think they just both look like idiots.

  • Derp-o-Matic 5000||

    Would not, would.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Will Trump be a great president or the greatest president?

  • WTF||

    He'll be the greatest President, the best President, he'll do great things like you wouldn't believe, with the best people, there'll be so much winning you'll get bored with winning, it'll be YUUUUGE!

  • Cynical Asshole||

    I see you somehow got an advance copy of his inauguration speech. Probably still not as bad as Hillary's would have been.

  • BeefJokey||

    He really is a great guy. He's great. Really great. Just a great guy all around.
    -Trump

  • esteve7||

    I live in the bay area and judging by how all the prog authoritarians are losing all of their shit, especially over the supreme court, then yes

  • PapayaSF||

    Hey esteve7, if you want to be notified about the next Bay area meetup, drop me a line at my handle at gmail.com. (Assuming you mean the SF Bay area.)

  • esteve7||

    sounds good, I sent you an email

  • ||

    If Trump makes good on his promise for SC appts he could appt as many as 4 justices and change the court for a generation. This is a YUUUUUUGE win for liberty.

    If he makes good on it.

  • BigT||

    " This is a YUUUUUUGE win for liberty entropy.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    DailyKos said they're going to oppose any and all legislation with Trump and the Republican congress in power.

    Explain to me how this is bad for liberty?

  • robc||

    No budget for at least 2 years!

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Government shutdown! Now it's a good thing!

  • robc||

    Risking the squirrels, but that would mean no budgets for 2 years!

  • robc||

    Dammit!

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    Its good for liberty, we may all end up freer 4 years from now just from sheer stupidity running into absolute idiocy, hopefully fusing together into one big ball of petrified lunacy that future generations can use as an interesting decorative piece on their coffee table.

  • ||

    Well, its Kos Kids. So given that they have the ear of exactly nobody who votes in Congress, I don't think its as good as it sounds.

  • ||

    relatively, yes.

  • GILMORE™||

    I am boycotting the Reason podcasts until we get 5th Column drunkenness on a more-timely-basis.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Matt's gone Orange for Trump!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    They're not getting another red cent from this listener.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    The new pennies are gonna be orange.

  • FreeToFear||

    Needs more "WHO'S WITH ME"

  • Juice||

    I just got this memo from the president of the college where I work:

    Dear Colleagues,

    As you know, the 2016 presidential campaign was particularly vitriolic. They have been distinct for their incivility and unabashed targeting of specific groups of people. In many ways, this election itself has not reflected our nation's best efforts to create meaningful dialogue about the country's most important issues. Many of us have felt threatened and insecure by the rhetoric that has emerged from some campaigning.
  • Juice||

    As I have said many times, XXX remains committed to radical inclusivity. That means support for students, faculty, and staff of diverse backgrounds. The rich variety of ethnic, racial, international, and political perspectives represented here is one of the pillars of our identity. We will continue to stand by the value that our diversity brings by defending our climate of civility and intellectual inquiry. We will also provide reassurance to all our community members that they are welcome here. For anyone who is experiencing acute anxiety, the counseling departments stand ready to provide extra support and faculty and staff can find support through the Employee Assistance Program. I also urge you to talk to your colleagues and friends on campus. Solidarity can go a long way in diffusing the intensity of emotion.

    I encourage faculty to collaborate on ways that make your classrooms laboratories for robust discussions of the complexities of presidential elections and our national governance systems. The College is full of disciplinary experts in history, politics, economics, and sociology, among other topics relevant to our society and political process. Opportunities for learning are omnipresent in our current circumstances. I encourage students to ask questions of our faculty about political processes. Such dialogues are the true markers of higher education and we can be examples to other communities in our approach to these dynamics.
  • Juice||

    I am grateful for the many expressions of concern for our students that I have received. I hope we can channel our passion for students into messages that reassure them while challenging us all to think in ways that are intellectually critical and boundlessly inclusive.


    Be well,

    XXX
    President
    XXX
  • GILMORE™||

    From my impression of colleges gleaned from Robby-articles, it sounds like you could have done a lot worse.

    Nothing at all might have been better, but hey, maybe they're trying to pre-empt protests.

  • C. Anacreon||

    My son's high school in the SF Bay Area just gave all the students the rest of the day off so they could protest Trump.

    My libertarian son (damn I'm proud of him) is very amused. He initially thought he might just come home, but I encouraged him to stay and watch for the lulz. I'm looking forward to his report this afternoon.

    No doubt at some point in his life he's going to be enthralled by some hot young woman who will try to convince him about the wonders of Karl Marx, it happens to many young men. But it may not work, he's got a greater understanding of economics as a high school freshman than I did when I was in medical school. He's even thinking of starting an Econ club. What a kid!

  • GILMORE™||

    I'm looking forward to his report this afternoon..

    post some pics

  • Juice||

    But I wonder if this kind of letter went out when Obama was elected. I wasn't here at the time. I'm going to say no.

  • Lee Genes||

    For anyone who is experiencing acute anxiety, the counseling departments free trucker hats are in the lounge
  • grrizzly||

    For anyone who is experiencing acute anxiety, the counseling departments stand ready to provide extra support and faculty and staff can find support through the Employee Assistance Program.

    And how come you don't have therapy dogs on campus? That's what all cool schools do.

  • Juice||

    I'd be cool with that.

  • Lord Rollingpin||

    Therapy Raptors would be better.

  • BigT||

    Therapy dogs??

    No...

    Therapy pussies!!

  • RBS||

    A college president wrote that?

  • SugarFree||

    If he didn't, he risked seeming insensitive to the needs of students who are suffering and afraid.

  • Ted S.||

    As you know, the 2016 presidential campaign was particularly vitriolic.

    He should read up on the elections of 1912 and 1800, for starters.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Nick, your mouth sounds dry, take a sip from ENB's juice box.

  • WTF||

    Her juice box?! At least you didn't tell him to grab her by the pussy.

  • Zeb||

    ENB's juicy box.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    KMW's answer @5:17 is spot on. Spot... on...

  • Ken Shultz||

    Trump is already good for libertarians--given the alternative.

    If he trashes Obama's executive orders, replaces ObamaCare with something less awful, and trashes Dodd-Frank, then compared to Hillary, he'll be good for libertarians.

    If Trump doesn't actively seek out Supreme Court justices to nominate specifically because they're hostile to the First and Second Amendments, then--compared to Hillary--he'll be good for libertarians.

    Last week, I figured hate speech laws were probably on the horizon.

    Now, when I see thousands of social justice warriors spontaneously flooding the streets of cities all over America in protest of President Trump, it's hard to imagine that electing him won't be good for libertarians.

    . . . compared to Hillary Clinton.

    Have I mentioned what rejecting Hillary does for the rule of law? Because Trump is President, the legitimization of corruption with an election win isn't a problem anymore.

    I'm looking forward to opposing Trump on all sorts of issues for libertarian reasons, but before I can get there, it'll take me a while to get over how good electing Trump was for libertarians.

  • Juice||

    Because Trump is President, the legitimization of corruption with an election win isn't a problem anymore.

    Really?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Has Trump abused public office?

    "In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton's State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records."

    http://www.motherjones.com/pol.....arms-deals

    Giving Hillary whatever legitimacy an election win confers after she ignored the rule of law would have effectively been giving her a mandate to ignore the rule of law.

    Trump doesn't have that problem.

    If he starts abusing his office to enrich himself and his family, by all means, we should do everything we can to deny him reelection--on that basis alone.

    But if Hillary had been elected despite her self-reported corruption, telling our fellow Americans to take the high road and return to the rule of law would have been a joke. Now that she's been rejected, we libertarians don't have anywhere near as much of a problem selling the rule of law--which is the foundation upon which all small state libertarianism is built.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    Has Trump abused public office?

    Means...yep
    Motive...fuck yes
    Opportunity...whelp...here we go

  • Cynical Asshole||

    If he starts abusing his office to enrich himself and his family, by all means, we should do everything we can to deny him reelection--on that basis alone.

    If he starts abusing his office to enrich himself, he should be impeached and removed from office, but I won't hold my breathe on that.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, well that's the thing: When the FBI and the Justice Department fail, and when Congress fails, the voters are the last line of defense against that sort of thing.

    I was scared to death that Hillary's form of corruption would become acceptable to the American people.

    I wasn't anywhere near as worried about what she would do as I was that the American people would come to find her disregard for the rule of law acceptable--and bless it with an election win.

    The only reason the FBI, the Justice Department, and Congress would act against an executive that ignores the rule of law would be out of fear that the American people would take their leaders to task at the polls if they didn't uphold the rule of law.

    What if they hadn't made Hillary pay? What if they'd legitimized disregarding the rule of law by voting her into office despite having disregarded it?

    What if the President disregarding the rule of law became okay with the American people?

    That was the worst thing that could have happened to libertarianism, and Donald Trump winning is good for libertarianism if only for averting that situation.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    I wasn't anywhere near as worried about what she would do as I was that the American people would come to find her disregard for the rule of law acceptable--and bless it with an election win.

    And then the next scum bag would be emboldened and might be even worse (if that's even possible). I get what you're saying.

    I'm just hoping that Congress peaks in its collective pants and finds a pair and they realize that "Oh, yeah! We're the ones that write the laws, pass the budget, and decide when we go to war, not the President! We kind of forgot about that." And then have the cojones to actually back it up, up to and including impeachment if necessary.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    Up to and including impeachment AND CONVICTION, if necessary.

    Mere impeachment does nothing.

  • ||

    "I'm looking forward to opposing Trump on all sorts of issues for libertarian reasons, but before I can get there, it'll take me a while to get over how good electing Trump was for libertarians."

    Hear, hear. I second that.

  • Peter Verkooijen||

    > If he trashes Obama's executive orders, replaces ObamaCare with something less awful, and trashes Dodd-Frank, then compared to Hillary, he'll be good for libertarians ...

    Dream on. Trump's priority is a trillion dollar "infrastructure" stimulus. He will replace ObamaCare with some kind of single-payer system with bipartisan support.

    America for the next decades will go back and forth between Russian/Chinese-style "state capitalism" and European/Latin American-style "democratic socialism".

    Those are the flavors of the main parties. Boomers and millennials don't want individual liberty, limited government, free enterprise, equal opportunities under rule of law. They want government to take care of them.

  • Indigent-American||

    Probably not. But our rich harvest of schadenfreude will sustain us through the dark times.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Will President Trump Be Good For Libertarians?

    If it causes the Progressives and Republicans to both re-think their love of executive power and maybe realize why it's a bad idea to expand presidential authority then yes. But since it won't have any such effect at all, in fact it will nmst likely cause the Progressives to just "prog harder" next time*, it won't be.

    *"Next time, let's make sure we get the wreckers and kulaks into the cattle cars while we have the chance!" - progtards

  • Indigent-American||

    Probably not. But the rich harvest of schadenfreude should sustain us through the dark times.

  • You ARE a Prog (MJG)||

    Assuming the squirrels don't overrun us.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Just for the record, not having time to argue with a random libertarian could be interpreted in all sorts of ways.

    For all we know, it was date night.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    An obvious takeaway is that libertarians were right to be worried about the expansion of executive power under Obama.

    This sounds like revisionist history to me, if the libertarians you're referring to were Reasonistas.

    I was here (under a different handle) back before his first election and the number of libertarians lining up behind Obama was sickening. Reddit was filled with them too. It's like all the things they hoped they could get from a Ron Paul Presidency could be realized by Obama... somehow.

    Yes, there were those of us who stuck to our guns and tried desperately to convince people that they were swallowing a massive load of bullshit, but they didn't listen to us. We were right, of course, but that is little consolation. Now we've got Shikha Dalmia and Steve Chapman articles trying to sell us the same load of shit in favor of the Clinton machine, but at least we aren't fucking buying what they're selling this time. Maybe it's because Clinton simply doesn't have the charisma, but I'd love to think that we learned our lesson after 8 years of it being shoved in our faces.

    Also... Fuck the squirrels already.

  • Ken Shultz||

    There was a lot of latent support for Obama because he appeared to be against the Iraq War and was running against the abuses of the Bush the Lesser Administration.

    If you were against torture, warrantless wiretapping, the Patriot Act, using Guantanamo to defy habeas corpus, extraordinary rendition, etc., etc., Obama provided hope that these things would change.

    Obama ended up exacerbating a lot of that, but back then, who knew?

    Anyway, as I recall, few libertarians here supported Obama per se, but we were enthusiastically behind some of his criticisms. We were also not enthusiastic about John McCain, who was running in favor of a lot of those anti-libertarian positions.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    Obama was promising massive increases of government and we got exactly what he promised. He never actually promised to end any of those things except close Guantanamo, and failed to do even that. When you hear a politician telling you he wants to spend a fuckton of money, believe that he will succeed at it. And realize that the more money you let him play with, the more of your liberties he will erode with it.

    He was every bit the Chicago political creature he appeared to be. One needed only look at the Congress we had at the time to see how much opposition there was to massive increases of the state to fight "terrorism." Democrats lined up at that same trough and the pleased oinking should have been heard in every corner of this nation.

    He was plugged in. Born and bred to the position. He pretended to be an outsider to pander to libertarians and the center, but some of us weren't fooled by the act. He dog-whistled and a lot of us couldn't hear it, and it made me furious at the time with quite a few libertarians. There was a reason I didn't come back to this site for a long time.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I didn't say Obama was a great guy.

    No one opposed him more than me.

    There was a lot of cautious optimism about his criticisms of anti-libertarians polices that turned out to be unfounded.

    No one thought he could get ObamaCare passed.

    And just because some of us were hopeful that he would unwind the Iraq War and bring some sense of normalcy back to our civil liberties, doesn't mean we weren't harsh with him. Whatever latent support there was for him around here quickly disappeared. His first act as President was to spend $350 billion to bail out Wall Street and nationalize General Motors. There weren't any libertarians applauding him around here once he got into office--except for maybe David Weigel.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    I didn't say Obama was a great guy.

    And I hope it doesn't seem like I was implying that you thought he was.

    My point was that a tiger can't change its stripes. I'm not as generous with your appraisal of libertarians being "cautiously optimistic" at that time. Quite a few were glowing with opportunity. It was repulsive.

    The glow was still there a few months into his Presidency. The "give him time" vibe was still going pretty strong even around here. I didn't stick around long after that to watch the change in attitude, so I can't attest to it.

  • SIV||

    I do recall Nick whining that obstructionist Republicans weren't confirm Obama's nominees fast enough.

    Then there's this

  • Robert||

    I was very glad Bush Jr. beat McCain for the 2000 nomination. But then in 2008 I voted for McCain. I was very glad Obama beat Hillary for the 2008 nomination. So imagine how I felt about 2016. But I don't think I'm going to be disappointed again by Trump's somehow limboing under the bar set by Hillary.

  • ||

    "Obama ended up exacerbating a lot of that, but back then, who knew?"

    There was never a time when Obama wasn't clearly exactly what he is. A statist, authoritarian of the marxist flavor.

    No excuse.

  • Ken Shultz||

    There was a time before he was elected when he was against warrantless wiretapping.

    What a joke that position turned out to be!

  • Ken Shultz||

    Anybody remember this?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5L2LMJcRIg

    There is no shame in being lied to.

    The shame comes from refusing to face the truth once the falsehood has become apparent.

    I question the objectivity of those who claim they've never been fooled.

    Those who admit they were wrong to believe are the ones who have my respect.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    I question the objectivity of those who claim they've never been fooled.

    Oh, I've been fooled.

    I was suckered in by liberals in schools. I was anti-gun, pro-police, and a believer in the federal government. I was a little authoritarian leftist. My Republican parents rarely talked politics with me.

    I found that I was naturally good at economics. I'd discovered by word of mouth that I was apparently the talk of the teacher's lounge (my econ teacher was influential). Later on, I discovered that the economics of the left didn't make sense. I'd also come around to the understanding that private firearm ownership was intended to be a bulwark against tyranny.

    There had to be other people like me, who rejected leftist economics, embraced freedom over authority, found the Constitution to be a beautiful document that restricted government the way that conservatives claimed it should. Heavily conflicted, I decided I didn't know enough to vote when I became old enough to legally do so. I waited for years to hopefully nurture wisdom with age.

    All the textbooks pretended that there were only democrats and republicans. What a sham. I'd long sensed that schools were indoctrination grounds, but finding out that there's a whole political spectrum that contained views like mine too, and that they were being suppressed to favor a false dichotomy roiled me. I never trusted democrats or republicans at face value again.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    Yer right about that, Suthenboy. It really didn't take much research on the guy's bio to figure out that he was an anti-American leftist authoritarian.

    The only thing I got wrong about Obama is that I thought he'd relocate the Guantanamo "detainees" to the US for trial. However, he was too politically inept and unprincipled to accomplish even that. He gets credit for ObamaCare, but that was really the work of Pelosi and Reid. Other than ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank, both of which have actually made things worse, Obama's eight years leave behind nothing except more death and destruction in the Middle East, a global refugee crisis, deteriorating relations with nuclear-armed nations, widespread disrespect for rule of law, serious mental health issues among progressives, and an additional $10 trillion in debt. Oh, yeah, race relations also seem to have deteriorated during the administration of the first black president.

  • You ARE a Prog (MJG)||

    And were any of them calling for an expansion of executive power under Obama?

    I recall one point in O's favor was his response to a survey from the Boston Globe, where he talks up separation of powers, the limits of the president's authority, says he's against signing statements, etc.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    The "Constitutional Scholar" bait on the hook looked sooooo tempting for a lot of libertarians. Follow the line back to the Chicago politician holding the pole and tell me you couldn't have seen it.

  • You ARE a Prog (MJG)||

    Is that supposed to be an answer to my question?

  • Zero Sum Game||

    It wasn't rhetorical? Obviously there were, and still are libertarians here. That was never in question.

    Libertarians who pulled Obama's lever because they were fooled by a clever smooth-talker, nonetheless. They got burned badly, and that's why I'm a little more comfortable around other libertarians. Libertarians learn lessons, that much seems evident.

  • ||

    Long before he was president, as a state senator, Obumbles voted against the right of self defense. You don't need to know anything more about that sack of shit.

    There is no excuse for any libertarian support of the guy.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    Tell me, do you think I'm exaggerating when I say that a lot of libertarians around here got infected with the same toxic glow as the progs at the time? Were you here at the time?

  • tarran||

    I remember when Obama beat McCain having huge arguments with John that Obama was far less likely to get us into a shooting war with Russia than McCain....

    I still think my logic was sound - given McCain's pushing for a military intervention to counter Russia's invasion of Georgia (the former SSR, not the US state). But nonetheless, my hopees about Obama improving the fed gov's respect for civil liberties was dashed by his actions. My hope that he would have a non-interventionist foreign policy died the moment I learned he had offered Sec of State job to Hillary.

    My emotions are very happy ones, especially because of what Trump is doing to the EPA. BUT.... I know rationally that some really unpleasant shit is coming down the pike and I need to temper my joy at Hillary's defeat.

    When Hitler's tanks drove Stalin's armies away from their villages many Ukranians were ecstatic.... :/

  • Robert||

    8 yrs. ago many of us were just glad Obama had beaten Clinton. I was. I didn't think Obama was going to be good, but I didn't think he'd be as bad as he turned out. So imagine how horrified I was at the thought of Hillary's coming back.

  • ||

    Well, gun stocks are falling pretty precipitously. Hopefully this means that the used gun market will see a glut and a price crash. I hadn't looked in a while, but it appears I can actually afford to go to the range again with my .40. It was always expensive to shoot, but fuck. I haven't done anything but clean it in about 3 years.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Here we go with the euphemisms again.

  • Cynical Asshole||

  • Zeb||

    I'm probably eating shit on that one. I was a little too late getting into SWHC.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    Had to happen. Gun shops stocked up in expectation of a rash of sales and that is probably not going to materialize.

    Everyone was so certain that Her Majesty was about to ascend the throne, obtain the imperial orb and scepter (read as: pen and phone), saddle us with some fuckwit revisionist SCOTUS pick, and go to town writing royal decrees (executive orders) when the legislature wouldn't cooperate.

    The sphincters are relaxing.

  • ||

    5.56 AR types are still over $750 on the low end at Cheaper Than Dirt today. I'm willing to pay about 2/3 of that for something with basic but good parts. So they probably need to come down 50-60% before my cheap ass buys one.

  • GILMORE™||

    gun stocks are falling pretty precipitously

    Yeah, Democrats drive sales.

    Republicans signal "no panic buying", and therefore flat-earnings.

  • GILMORE™||

    or rather, weaker. There has probably been a good run the last 2 quarters.

  • You ARE a Prog (MJG)||

    Probably not. But I'm trying to be optimistic until we get some firm details, like his appointments and any legislation he wants to see introduced.

    And has anyone actually listened to this thing? I listened to yesterday's Popehat interview, and the audio levels did not impress. I assume all 3 here are in the same room and properly mixed? Otherwise, no dice!

  • Robert||

    What does KM-W have against tax credits? Or is it something specifically against child care tax credits? Shouldn't we take any chance we can get to cut anybody's taxes? And child care—that could cut taxes for millions of people, so it's not like redistribution to some narrow group.

  • SugarFree||

    It's still social engineering via the tax code by shifting the tax burden around rather than lessening it.

  • Zeb||

    I'm sort of ambivalent on that question. On the one hand, paying less in taxes is unquestionably a good thing.

    But on the other, I don't think using the tax code to provide incentives for certain activities is good either. And provides a way for politicians to wield more influence than they should by buying of favored constituencies.

    So I guess they are better than the system we have now without them would be. But I'd much rather have a similar system, but with much lower rates and without special credits and deductions like that.

  • Robert||

    It might be social engrg. if it were using the tax code to incentivize something few people would do anyway. But come on, people having babies has been going on at least since I was born, and I don't think the demand for babies is highly elastic. How much would the credit have to be to change more than a handful of people's child-rearing behavior? Even Kerry Howley donated eggs only because it was she thought she was doing a very good deed, not for the $.

  • Zeb||

    Sure. The child credit is probably one of the least worst. I was thinking more generally about tax deductions and credits. But refundable credits are just transfers.

  • Robert||

    To the extent refundable credits wind up paying, that's true. I'd be interested in what percent of refundable tax credit (considering all that people know about any kind of tax anywhere in the world) calculations turn out to be a payment to the claimant, & how much a reduction in the tax. If in the aggregate it's more a reduction in the tax, good; if it's just a euphemism for a subvention for the most part, bad.

    I think the most popular (in terms of support, not claimants) tax deductions & credits will probably not be widely considered social engrg., because I think there'd be a revulsion against that sort of thing, but rather broad ones for things people do anyway, like child rearing & education. So that may be one of the more effective ways to get a tax cut plan enacted. People look at percentages & think, the other guy can afford that when earning/buying/whatever, but if you put it in terms of helping out for common expenses that many people have, I think there's a lot more sympathy.

  • You ARE a Prog (MJG)||

    Social engineering. And unless it means a decrease in federal spending, it just means a nominal tax cut for certain people doing certain things at certain times. The bill must be paid.

  • Derp-o-Matic 5000||

    Tax credits distort the market and, as others say, are just social engineering by another name.

  • Robert||

    Everything specific "distorts the market". Even changing to a regime you might consider more "neutral" "distorts" the market when people have the existing regime built into their calcul'ns. Home mortgage deductions from income taxes, for instance, can be considered distortive (but OTOH there's real estate taxes), but when the market has already subsumed them in valuations, abolishing or limiting them distorts things too for a while.

    There's no neutral tax, because every tax taxes something.

  • ||

    So let's see....

    He's going to abbrogate NAFTA, impose a bunch of tariffs on imports, cancel the TPP, possibly round up a bunch of people and deport them, spend a ton of money on infrastructure, not do anything about entitlements, and appoint at least one SCOTUS judge who will continue to support eminent domain.

    I think the answer is "NO", unless you mean that things will be so horrible under Trump that libertarian fortunes cannot possibly do anything but rise. But then even in this election year, Gary Johnson couldn't get 5% of the vote so how much better could it possibly get for us?

  • Ken Shultz||

    As I say in my post up yonder, the alternative to Trump offered other threats to our liberties--and not much difference on the things you're talking about.

    Whether Trump is a net good for libertarians is an open question in the broadest terms.

    But sometimes maximizing profits is actually about losing as little as possible.

    Surely, whether Trump was better than Hillary is a different kind of question.

    Ever read Candide in college? Pangloss is a stand in for Leibniz. Voltaire parodies Leibniz's position as if he were saying that, "The world is as good as it can possibly be", but Leibniz's position was actually more like, "The world is as good as it can be--given what is possible".

    You're saying that Trump wasn't as libertarian as we could possibly be.

    I'm saying Trump was the most libertarian option--given what was possible.

  • ||

    No, I think Trump moves us in a net negative direction by making future libertarian outcomes less likely. I think you know my position well enough.
    The R's have just gotten the message that populist big government economics gets them elected. That cannot do anything other than make them more likely to advocate populist big-government economics.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "No, I think Trump moves us in a net negative direction by making future libertarian outcomes less likely."

    Less likely than the outcomes under Hillary Clinton?

  • MikeP2||

    "The R's have just gotten the message that populist big government economics"

    How do you figure that? Most of the NeverTrumper Republicans were the biggest voices in populist big government economics.

    Trump's declared policy proposals for his first year are a direct targeted hit on big government economics. How the hell is everyone ignoring the benefits of term limits, anti-lobbying proposals, and federal employee reductions?

  • MikeP2||

    "abbrogate NAFTA" No. He said renegotiate it. Canada is all for it. NAFTA was not in anyway a free trade agreement. It was a controlled trade agreement geared to furthering crony capitalism.
    "cancel the TPP"....see above. It's not a "free trade agreement". It's hundreds of pages of negotiated corruption for special interest groups.
    "impose a bunch of tariffs on imports". Do you realize how many hundreds of tariffs on imports already exist? Trump has proposed re-evaluating this, not arbitrarily adding new. Why are you so stuck on the status quo that was negotiated by corrupt aholes like Harry Reid and the like. Yeh, libertarians should be all for opening up the agreements and reassessing.
    Our infrastructure needs a ton of money. Commerce requires infrastructure. If I have to pay taxes, I damn well want to see roads, dams, and pipelines, instead of the multi-billion dollar bailouts to banks and GM.

    you need to grow up and get past the whiny teenager mentality or you'll spend your life bitter

  • ||

    Yes.

    Are y'all gonna keep machine-gunning the anti-Trump articles?

  • GILMORE™||

    One begins to think that they might have shot their wad, thinking that he was going to be gone-forever after the election.

    Shikha must be delirious with worry that he'll fail to live up to her expectations.

  • Douchey defeats Trumpman, Jr.||

    At least it makes some sense now that he's president-elect. Or did Reason know something no one else did?!?

  • Zeb||

    Well, once he's actually in office, hopefully they will have some more substantial anti-Trump articles. I'm sure there will be plenty to criticize.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The only appropriate position for a libertarian to always be in is in opposition to the emperor.

    We've got at least four years of this to come.

  • SimonD||

    The only appropriate position for a libertarian to always be in is in opposition to the emperor

    At least now we'll have plenty of company in the legacy media.

  • Je suis Woodchipper||

    that Paris Climate Accord is dead. that's worth at least 15 more minutes of sweet schadenfreude high.

    /gonna kick tomorrow

  • Derp-o-Matic 5000||

    I don't get the LGBLT, et. al, freak out over Trump. Trump rarely discussed those issues at all during the campaign, and when he did, as I recall, he said he was fine with homosexuals and offered to let Caitlyn Jenner use the shitter in Trump Tower.

  • Douchey defeats Trumpman, Jr.||

    (R)

  • MikeP2||

    They define themselves by how much attention that can get focused their way. South Park parodied this wonderfully a decade ago when Garrison came out.

    Attention and adulation is the goal. So anything will be protested with the associated chickenlittle freakout

  • Derp-o-Matic 5000||

    I have no sympathy for the people panicking that they'll be targeted because, aside from illegal immigrants, Trump has not said any of the hyperbolic shit that proggies are claiming. (I suspect, as with the rejection of the election results, this is just more projection of what they would do if they had such unchecked power.)

  • The Fusionist||

    The switch from OMG he'll challenge the results of the election to violent protests in the street about the election are strong supportive evidence for the projection hypothesis.

    Likewise the talk about reckless foreign policy from people whose candidate wants to enforce a no-fly zone against Russian aircraft in Syria.

  • The Fusionist||

    Ah, so now we're measuring Trump on some other scale than "is he better than Hillary?"

    I'm guessing that he's not a big freedom-fancier in either the libertarian or conservative sense.

    As I enjoy pointing out to progs, he's basically a New Deal Demcrat - think FDR, but less racist (since Trump has yet to put American citizens in camps because of their race) and less xenophobic (because the immigration laws were stricter, and better-enforced, under FDR than under Trump's proposals).

    Progs love it when I point this out.

    But it means don't get your hopes up.

    In case you were thinking about getting your hopes up.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    The race was between Trump and Clinton. Objectively, Trump is not as bad as Clinton from a libertarian perspective. Why? Educational choice, Supreme Court, EPA regulation, energy regulation, foreign relations with nuclear-armed nations, Citizens United, 2nd Amendment, internet regulation, welfare state expansion, enforcement of the demands of SJWs on college campuses, wage controls, ObamaCare, and much more. I doubt he'll do much to improve things on all these fronts, but he wasn't promising to make things worse.

    Trump is maybe a bit worse than Clinton on expansion of slander and libel and eminent domain. Maybe. Maybe you could add federal funding of Planned Parenthood for libertarians who think the right to an abortion is so fundamental that taxpayers should be coerced to pay for them.

    Otherwise, Clinton and Trump are pretty much equally horrible.

  • Robert||

    I think he actually will do much to improve several of those things, and that he'll accomplish some improvements none of us even expected or were thinking much about.

  • Alan Vanneman||

    It's strange to listen to three intelligent people talk a load of mush. Will Trump be good for the libertarians? Well, not if that libertarian is an undocumented immigrant, or perhaps a relative of a suspected terrorist. I guess Trump will be good for libertarians living in the Southwest who are in the wall-building business, or who drive buses. Libertarians who shop at Wal-Mart may be a little upset when prices increase by 50% thanks to the new tariffs on goods arriving from China. Libertarians who are young black or Hispanic men may object to new, national stop and frisk laws. And, of course, libertarians who are members of ISIS (granted, a small number) will have the shit bombed out of them. Oh, and there's the eminent domain thing. Other than that, what could go wrong with a guy who expresses his contempt for the First and Fourth Amendments--basically, the whole concept of the rule of law--every time he opens his mouth?

    It's hard to say--or rather, scary to think--about the specifics of what Trump will do, but three things are certain: 1. He will cut taxes. 2. He will increase spending. 3. He will increase the deficit. Reagan and Bush II did these three things and they won re-election. Bush I did not, and he lost.

  • Lord Rollingpin||

    'undocumented immigrant'
    Illegal immigrant or undocumented democrat voter.
    Either way, why should anyone worry, they shouldn't be here.

  • ||

    You're sure not going to get them to vote for Republicans by threatening to kidnap them and throw them out of the country.

  • Careless||

    Nor are you going to get them to vote for Republicans by giving them amnesty and citizenship. They tried that once. Ask Bush I how his share of their vote went. Nor will they vote for libertarians.

    So what?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "You're sure not going to get them to vote for Republicans by threatening to kidnap them and throw them out of the country."

    You can stop them from voting for Democrats that way.

  • Christophe||

    You can stop them from voting for Democrats that way.

    The status-quo does that just as effectively, and for cheaper.

  • OldMexican Blankety Blank||

    Re: Lord Rollingpin,

    Either way, why should anyone worry, they shouldn't be here.


    Wait - why shouldn't they be here? They were invited in. By property owners. By people who want to hire them, rent to them, even marry them. Just who the FUCK are YOU to tell ANYONE where they should be?

    Asshole.

  • Careless||

    He is, presumably, an American citizen, and as such, has equal right with the others of us to decide whom we allow in the country.

  • MikeP2||

    Yeh....voting taxpaying American citizen here. Yes, I have the right to say that trespassers should get the hell out. That is my Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech. So go to hell you racist POS.

  • OldMexican Blankety Blank||

    Re: Alan Vanneman,

    It's strange to listen to three intelligent people talk a load of mush.


    Imagine listening to a petulant and conceited nincompoop talk a load of mush... Oh, Hi, Alan!

    Will Trump be good for the libertarians?


    Mush, mush, mushity-mush.

    [...] of course, libertarians who are members of ISIS [sic] (granted, a small number) will have the shit bombed out of them.


    How sweet you are, Alan! You really think that being a libertarian is like being freckled, or a Pisces!

  • Robert||

    Sorry to be so late writing this, but...yes—provided "libertarian" means someone sincerely interested in advancing liberty, as opposed to someone who wants to be known as an expert/leader/thinker/elite on the subject. And even many in that category (minus "elite") will be advantaged too, because Trump's election, even if he dies before taking office, helps pave the way for outsiders generally.

  • OldMexican Blankety Blank||

    Re: Robert,

    yes—provided "libertarian" means someone sincerely interested in advancing liberty, as opposed to someone who wants to be known as an expert/leader/thinker/elite on the subject.


    That's like saying there are engineers who want to advance engineering as opposed to those that merely teach engineering. But they're not opposed at all.

    Trump's election, even if he dies before taking office, helps pave the way for outsiders generally.


    Maybe outsiders who also happen to be very wealthy p...sy grabbers.

  • Robert||

    Maybe I should've put it in terms of consumers of liberty vs. profferers of liberty.

  • John Titor||

    I've never heard ENB before.

    Is it the phone or does she always sound like My Little Pony in a coalmine?

  • SparktheRevolt||

    Wood? (no idea what that would sound like btw)

  • n00bdragon||

    Any article with a yes/no question as the title can be safely answered as "no". Prove me wrong.

  • John C. Randolph||

    For Libertarians, the tragedy of Trump getting the white house is counterbalanced by the relief of Hillary not getting it. For us, it's pretty much a wash.

    -jcr

  • MikeP2||

    "Will President Trump Be Good For Libertarians?"

    Yes. Trump will be the most libertarian president since Reagan.

    Sure, Libertarians may disagree with 50% or more of the policies, but FFS, that is a hell of a lot better than 100%.

    Obama didn't further one policy that increased liberty or freedom in this country.
    Bush didn't further one policy that increased liberty or freedom in this country.
    Hillary proposed no policies that would have increased liberty or freedom in this country.

    Trump has proposed a number of policies that will increase liberty and freedom. The term limit proposals alone are enormous. The anti-corruption lobbying proposals would be very impactful to advance the voice of the people. His SCOTUS nominee list is not horrible.

    Yeh, there is plenty to be concerned about, but that doesn't negate the potential positives.

  • MikeP2||

    If Reason can't acknowledge that some of these proposals are a net libertarian positive, then this has truly devolved into a prog front.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/.....mantle-dod

  • joeboise||

    Trump stood on a stage and called out the uniparty and GWB for 9/11, Iraq and Syria. Don't underestimate his criticism of Iraq as a part of his support, against Clinton, who was defending her vote for 10 years.

  • joeboise||

    Trump stood on a stage and called out the uniparty and GWB for 9/11, Iraq and Syria. Don't underestimate his criticism of Iraq as a part of his support, against Clinton, who was defending her vote for 10 years.

  • Peter Verkooijen||

    Donald Trump is a big government "liberal". He will get another trillion dollar stimulus and a single-payer ObamaCare alternative passed with bipartisan support in Congress.

    Trump will extend the Obama era. Republicans will only get more confused and divided as the miserable Trump era drags on with more debt, money printing, economic distortion and stagnation.

    Blame for the bankrupt welfare state will fall on Republicans, conservatives and by association libertarians. In 2020 the Democrats will nominate a young white male socialist demagogue able to win back much of Trump's coalition.

    America will become a full-on banana republic in the coming decades, with continuing centralization of the economy, growing inequality, loss of basic liberties, growing corruption, etc.

    There is no silver lining whatsoever. Individual liberty, limited government and equal opportunity under rule of law are lost causes in America for at least the next generation.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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