MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

CPAC Organizer Tries To Pawn Off Milo Yiannopoulos as "Libertarian"

Yeah, not so much.

Breitbart.comBreitbart.comWhat do you do when you're Matt Schlapp, the guy heading up the American Conservative Union, which runs the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (emphasis added), and it turns our your biggest draw to this year's event defends pedophilia? Well, first you disinvite him and then you bluster your way through an excrutiatingly painful few minutes on Morning Joe before trying to pawn Milo Yiannopoulos off as a libertarian:

"He doesn't call himself conservative. He calls himself more of a libertarian.... Some libertarians would deny that he's a libertarian."

On that much, we agree. Most libertarians I know wouldn't claim Milo as one of our own. You know who else says Milo isn't a libertarian? Well, Milo himself, it turns out:

"Libertarians are children. Libertarians are people who have given up looking for an answer. This whole 'everybody do what they want' is code for 'leave me to do what I want.' It's selfish and childish. It's an admission that you have given up trying to work out what a good society would look like, how the world should be ordered and instead just retreated back into selfishness. That's why they're so obsessed with weed, Bitcoin, and hacking."

Read more about that here and here.

Milo's critique of libertarianism is not so strong, is it? As it happens, the policy work being done by folks at Reason Foundation (the nonprofit that publishes this website) is revolutionizing K-12 education, public-sector pensions, transportation infrastructure, and more. Same goes for ideological compadres at the Cato Institute and elsewhere. To the extent that there's a principled opposition to really dumb military interventions, runaway spending, and conservative-approved idiocies such as a border wall and trade protectionism, well, it's not conservatives pushing it. And none of that is to deny one bit that drug policy, criminal justice reform, crypto-currencies, and forced transparency of government overreach are in any way about "selfishness."

What does it say about the modern conservative movement that CPAC was so desperate to get Milo on its stage in the first place? Nothing good. He's outrageous (not really "dangerous" in any meaningful sense of the word) and he is fully capable of bringing out the worst elements of the idiot-progressive left. But does he have anything to say when he's actually allowed to speak? Derp, not really. Schlapp can say that ACU wants to teach the controversy and all that, but the fact of the matter is that as an intellectual force and a serious place for discussion about policy, CPAC has been more watered-down than the beer at Delta House for a very long time. It's a good sign that someone with the last name Paul won five of the last seven presidential straw polls, but conservatives and Republicans have almost completely squandered their power and influence throughout the 21st century. When George W. Bush and the GOP ran the federal government, they busted the budget in a way that would embarrass drunken sailors the world over. When Obama was in power, they did virtually nothing to demand actual budgets or restrain executive power, and they're still pretending that they are really...just...about...ready...to...reveal an alternative health-insurance plan. They nominated and elected Donald Trump for president and it's surprising that CPAC invited/disinvited a flyweight trash talker to their big shindig? It's almost as if they didn't kick out the gays a couple of years ago or that Newt Gingrich doesn't show up every year and talk about the need for flag-burning amendments and English-only laws.

It's never easy for a movement founded on the cry of standing athwart history, yelling Stop to move forward, but this is simply ridiculous.

Here's Matt Schlapp on Morning Joe:

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.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    This whole 'everybody do what they want' is code for 'leave me to do what I want.'

    And? Christ, what an asshole.

    Also, Gillespie, your alt-text could use some work.

  • Not a True MJG||

    I like that he describes it as if libertarians are trying to hide something or trick people. Plenty of libertarians come out and say, "leave me the fuck alone."

  • aelhues||

    That exact phrase comes out of my mouth regularly, based partly on the selfish bit, of course. However the primary bit is; despite considering myself of well above average intelligence, I don't feel it is my right to tell others how to live their lives!

  • Citizen X - #6||

    I don't feel it is my right to tell others how to live their lives!

    This is called "being a rational person" and sadly few people feel the same way.

  • ColoradoKook||

    Apparently, it's selfish not to try to control others.

  • commodious rebrands||

    You're infringing on the freedom of people who want to control your life by resisting being controlled.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    John made that exact argument once. I am not kidding.

  • Not a True MJG||

    It's also Tony's base argument.

  • rudehost||

    It is certainly possible that Tony is a John sock. Notice you never see them together.

  • ||

    Stop not telling me what to do you selfish child!

  • Il Padrone||

    Ha, ha, ha! Excellent ;)

  • Eman||

    I'm not calling you a liar, but is there anyone who doesnt consider themselves smarter than average?

  • Eman||

    I'm not calling you a liar, but is there anyone who doesnt consider themselves smarter than average?

  • Eman||

    I'm not calling you a liar, but is there anyone who doesnt consider themselves smarter than average?

  • Fascist loofa-faced shitgibbon||

    Funny he doesn't realize he's living the libertarian life.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Team Red called Lyndon LaRouche a libertarian, too.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    It's an admission that you have given up trying to work out what a good society would look like, how the world should be ordered

    You know who else thought they'd worked out how the world should be ordered?

  • Hugh Akston||

    Aristotle?

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    YHWH?

  • ColoradoKook||

    Hulk Hogan and his New World Order cronies?

  • lap83||

    Melvil Dewey?

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Captain John 'Hannibal' Smith?

  • Vernon Depner||

    Mohammed?

  • ||

    Carl Linnaeus?

  • Unemployed Armenian Tranny||

    The guy that invented the drive-thu?

  • Enemy of the State||

    Lyndon Larrouche?

  • John Titor||

    Real libertarians publish online magazines where their writers consistently fail to articulate libertarian philosophy and rant about how rioting over freedom of speech is justified on Twitter.

  • ||

    Reason is agog that a conservative is calling Milo a Libertarian yet they regularly pyblish Shikka as a Libertarian.

    Go figure.

  • ||

    Reason is agog that a conservative is calling Milo a Libertarian yet they regularly pyblish Shikka as a Libertarian.

    Go figure.

  • ||

    Reason is agog that a conservative is calling Milo a Libertarian yet they regularly pyblish Shikka as a Libertarian.

    Go figure.

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    Brutal, John Titor. You just used Valyrian steel on these mofo's.

  • Unemployed Armenian Tranny||

    Judging by "our" Presidental Candidates, I'd say Milo was pretty close to being a Libertarian.

    I'll go make that cake you ordered, now.

  • Macy's Window||

    Milo is MORE libertarian than "our" Presidential slate.

    I'd like German chocolate, please, with a nice couple of little plastic guys in tuxes on top.

  • Emmerson Biggins||

    Ya, if anybody still retains ex-communication powers it's the glibertarians. Not the riders of the orange line.

  • The Metonymy||

    Who cares what Alyssa Milano thinks?

  • A Cynic's Guide to Zen||

    Holy shit. Another Milo article. Dark Bishop moves to Check.

    What is this, seventh grade? Have you not eyes to see?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    If it was seventh grade, would Milo be cruising Reason?

  • ant1sthenes||

    He was clearly hurting the progs, or we wouldn't see such an effort to destroy him. Certainly, it doesn't seem like he said anything worse than people say here about similar heterosexual relationships (provided the older female partner is sufficiently attractive).

  • A Cynic's Guide to Zen||

    Irony notwithstanding, it is curious that people are losing self-awareness to this degree.

    The internet does not forget.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    He's a serious threat to the left's identity politics, and as such, must be destroyed.

  • ThomasD||

    This hit was clearly orchestrated with people at CPAC. The overall timing being just too effective to have been by chance.

    Meaning his destruction is also being sought by people within the mainstream of the conservative movement. This is less about the left seeking to destroy an opponent and more about people on the right seeking to maintain their pecking order

  • Unemployed Armenian Tranny||

    He was the progtard's most triggering of triggers, it seems.

  • Sevo||

    "It's an admission that you have given up trying to work out what a good society would look like, how the world should be ordered and instead just retreated back into selfishness."

    It's an admission that neither you, nor me, nor any person has ever successfully 'worked out how the world should be ordered'.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    Replace "selfishness" with "statism" and he's a genius.

  • Raston Bot||

    when reform fails, market participants choose exit.

  • Jerryskids||

    Everybody's got their own idea of what a good society should look like and when you leave everybody free to pursue their own ends and their own means what you wind up with is exactly what we have. Take a look around - the world is the way it is because that's how everybody's worked to make it. It certainly wasn't their intent to make things the way they are, but the way things are is a natural consequence of everybody trying to influence the shape of things to their own liking. The thing is to make people realize that simple fact and to realize you can't just wish away or legislate away all the troubles in the world because other people want things to be different than the way you want them to be.

    It's like everybody bitching about traffic - they all think traffic is other people. If you're bitching about being stuck in a traffic jam every morning and every evening going back and forth to work, stop and think for a minute that you're the traffic jam. Move into the city and pay higher living expenses, find a job in the suburbs that doesn't pay as well, find a job that has different hours that may not be the job you want or quit bitching about all the other people that are trying to live the exact same sort of life you're trying to live.

  • Jerryskids||

    You can push for more or better roads, but other people are opposed to more roads, they want fewer people. Others want less money spent on roads and more on mass transit or other things. What you've got now is the compromise where nobody's happy about the priorities and the amount of money and effort being spent to address this, that, or the other problem. But they all disagree on what the proper priorities and the correct amount of time and effort is to be spent on each problem, and what exactly the problem is and how to fix it. So we all just muddle along as best we can, and muddling along the best we can got us where we are right now. This is - as I often say - the best of all possible worlds because this is what we got when everybody did the best they could to make the world a better place.

  • B.P.||

    Nick, your doing this wrong. Whenever you reference Milo Whatshisname, you're supposed to make an ostentatious display about what a monster he is and reference, generally, the indefensible things he says without ever actually spelling out those indefensible utterances. Robby can show you.

  • esteve7||

    I love how the media always must jump to an immediate conclusion and people MUST TAKE ACTION before all the facts are in or before things have had time to digest.

    Not just with Milo, but with PewDiePie, Trump's statements on Sweden, or really any Trump statement. We can't take a breather and gather all relevant information and make an informed decision. No we need act emotionally and act NOW!

    Christ, no wonder these people are such basket-cases in real life. In the bay area you have a huge uptick on people being treated for post-election stress syndrome, as they've nicknamed it, because these fucks are sore losers who can't admit their side lost.

  • Raston Bot||

    Anyone else view him as 100% satire and that he's just riding the outrage money train for as long as he can?

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    Ann Coulter as drag king.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Actually, has anyone ever seen Milo and Ann Coulter together?

  • Tak Kak||

    https://goo.gl/v1WPoe

    Yes, multiple times! All Photoshop.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Something tells me I probably shouldn't click on that. I mean, Milo and Ann Coulter... "together"...

    *shudders*

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Spoiler alert: sexually, she's the man.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Great, now I have a mental image of Ann Coulter pegging Milo with a giant strap-on.

    *vomits*

  • Citizen X - #6||

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    That's funny right there.

  • DarrenM||

    Admit it. You're aroused.

  • SparktheRevolt||

    Yes

  • Not a True MJG||

    Is there some other explanation for him? Though I don't know if satire is the right word.

    What's sad and funny is seeing hip young progressives lose their shit over a shock jock.

  • Cynical Asshole||

  • Raston Bot||

    some elements of his performance are satire, certainly. for example, a few years ago he wrote a piece that extended the feminist position wrt equal wages to the conclusion that women have no agency and are effectively state property.

  • Voros McCracken||

    He's not 100% satire. I think there's generally a "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" core to him, but acting like an uber-troll has gotten him to where he is today and so he says all manner of foolish and absurd things to provoke a reaction.

    I don't feel the slightest bit sorry for him, but the triumphalism of everyone who (at the very best) aren't an iota better than him dancing around with his scalp in their hands is annoying.

  • Remnant Psyche||

    He's being falsely accused of pedophilia, but you don't feel sorry for him because he says mean things and courts commentary as he defends freedom of speech?

    What the fuck is wrong with you?

  • ThomasD||

    I think he's 6 parts self promoting huckster, 2 parts bomb thrower and 2 parts substance. I've also equated him with Glenn Beck multiple times here, but do concede that on substance he's better than many others.

  • Long Woodchippers||

    Beck can't stand him, but I think Milo is spot on the issues.

    It's true that someone like Shapiro speaks the same message without the gayness and the baggage, and is also despised by the progs on campus - but I also think that Milo humor, rightness on the issues and warrior against SJWs has made the average person on the right more accepting of gays - but there are still many on the right who do not want this to happen and dug deep for something to bludgeon Milo with, something that normal folk just couldn't be tolerant of.

    I get Milo's point. Young gay men are very ostracized. The Socons are hating the sinner as well as the sin. The only place they had to turn was into the arms of older men, even if those older men were mainly there to exploit the young men for their own pleasure.

  • kbolino||

    That's why they're so obsessed with weed, Bitcoin, and hacking

    New libertarian trifecta?

  • Not a True MJG||

    How am I supposed to fuck a Bitcoin?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    The Bitcoins are Mexican. Then you hack dat azz.

  • Not a True MJG||

    I heard they were Venezuelan.

  • ant1sthenes||

    No, the cartels are Mexican, they're the ones doing the hacking. You spend the bitcoin on Venezuelan ass sex.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    The cartels provide the weed. It's a two-for-one deal.

  • Raston Bot||

    it's a fluid list. the last iteration i saw had heroin, CRISPR, and suppressors.

  • In Time Of War||

    What about legalized prostitution? Way to disenfranchise the sex-trafficking victims, Milo.

  • Rebel Scum||

    CPAC Organizer Tries To Pawn Off Milo Yiannopoulos as "Libertarian"

    My lefty grandparents think Paul Ryan is a libertarian. I guess it is just another meaningless term to be thrown around now.

  • SparktheRevolt||

    "Libertarians are obsessed with weed and hacking"-Milo Yiannopoulos

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

  • Cynical Asshole||

    "Libertarians are children. Libertarians are people who have given up looking for an answer. This whole 'everybody do what they want' is code for 'leave me to do what I want.' It's selfish and childish. It's an admission that you have given up trying to work out what a good society would look like, how the world should be ordered and instead just retreated back into selfishness. That's why they're so obsessed with weed, Bitcoin, and hacking."

    Fuck off, asshole.

  • Juice||

    All the post-pubescent boys you can eat.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "What does it say about the modern conservative movement that CPAC was so desperate to get Milo on its stage in the first place? Nothing good."

    Very disappointing analysis, Mr. Gillespie.

    Two good things that it says:

    1) The conservatives were trying to distinguish themselves from progressives on the issue of free speech.

    2) The conservatives are no longer as eager to use orientation as a wedge issue.

    You should be able to see this, Mr. Gillespie. You should be the one pointing these things out to other people.

    It's libertarian moment / Declaration of Independents type stuff.

  • Ship of Theseus||

    "Free speech" is not the issue. I'm really tired of this illiterate garbage.

  • Ken Shultz||

    You don't think they were trying to make free speech a distinction between conservatives and campus SJWs by inviting Milo?

    Why?

  • Ship of Theseus||

    You don't get "freedom" from dopey college campuses, you get it from government. Milo isn't under threat to be silenced by the government, he pissed off some college campus idiots and they didn't let him speak (as is their right). Conflating that with "free speech" puts you in a camp with the idiot children who think every one of their rights is being threatened by president Trump.

  • Ship of Theseus||

    And of course I should clarify that freedom doesn't come *from* government, so much as government is the body that can take that freedom away.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The issue with Milo is free speech.

    The conservatives were trying to distinguish themselves from the SJWs on campus on free speech.

    Libertarians should encourage conservatives to do that.

    Not punish them for it.

    That they're more tolerant of someone who is openly gay than they used to be is encouraging, too. It means they're moving on to bigger, better, more libertarian issues.

    Advertising themselves as more tolerant than the SJWs is a hell of a lot better than when it was all about abortion and opposition to gay marriage.

  • Ship of Theseus||

    "Punish"

    "Free speech"

    These are things you clearly don't understand the meaning of.

  • Ken Shultz||

    They demonstrate their tolerance for free speech by tolerating a controversial speaker who wasn't tolerated elsewhere, and some people are punishing them for it.

    If the shoe fits, . . .

  • Fluffy||

    You fucking idiot, being silenced by mob violence that agents of the state deliberately stand by and refuse to stop most definitely infringes your free speech.

    If the government announced tomorrow that anyone who wants to stop you from speaking can show up and destroy property and inflict bodily harm on you if you show your face in public to speak, would your free speech rights be infringed by that government, or not?

    Next you're going to tell me that kristallnacht wasn't evidence of state anti-semitism because the SA was a private organization. Because you're fucking stupid.

  • Ship of Theseus||

    You, my friend are a fucking idiot. That much is clear. Are you a John sock by any chance?

  • B.P.||

    So, violent heckler's veto is now a right. Got it.

  • Fluffy||

    Holy fucking shit. I ask everyone to witness that this fucking Johnny Come Lately just asked if I was a John sock.

    No, are you a fucking TNG sock? Or maybe Mary? Tulpe, perhaps?

    Blow me.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    STEVE SMITH REMEMBER YOU. NOT RECALL YOU BEING SUCH A FLAMING ASSHOLE. STEVE SMITH LOVE THE SMELL OF FLAMING ASSHOLE IN THE MORNING. SMELL LIKE...FLUFFY!

  • Fluffy||

    Dude, I was always a flaming asshole once the rage took me.

    And what else but towering rage would bring me back here to the realm of the Jacket?

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    STEVE SMITH RAGE AT DYING LIGHT. LIKE TO LOOK VICTIMS IN EYE.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Holy shit! Fluffy's back?

    Where the hell have you been?!

    (Assuming, of course, that you're the Fluffy from two or more years ago, and not yet another Tulpa/Palin's/Mary/troll-to-be-named-later sock.)

  • Brochettaward||

    You don't get "freedom" from dopey college campuses

    You really are a moron. Milo visits college campuses that are predominantly funded by the tax payers. They do, in fact, have an obligation to protect free speech/peaceful assembly. To include the 'private' institutions. It's local cops standing by while people riot and attack his supporters.

    Milo is invited by people on campus who often pay him to show up. Those people have a right to get the service they pay for.

    (as is their right)

    I missed the inalienable right people have to occupy and harass people in public spaces. To include using violence.

    So, yea, you're a fucking idiot.

  • Ship of Theseus||

    Sometimes, I am indeed.

    I had the story all wrong. My fault entirely.

  • Voros McCracken||

    "You don't get "freedom" from dopey college campuses, you get it from government."

    That's not what the people who wrote the constitution thought. You get it by merely being born human. The constitution was simply a document written to try and make sure the new government respected that.

    Spoiler alert: it didn't work.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Very disappointing comment, Mr Shultz. Very disappointing.

    1) Promoting free speech isn't the same thing as giving a major public platform to the worst kind of speech.

    2) There are gay actual conservative who aren't assholes.

    I'm so disappointed. In you. Please try harder to live up to my expectations so I am not disappointed in the future. You are a disappointment.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Promoting free speech isn't the same thing as giving a major public platform to the worst kind of speech."

    If the conservatives can demonstrate their tolerance better than the protestors at Berkeley and elsewhere, then giving a platform to that kind of speech is promoting free speech.

    I'm getting tired of seeing libertarians (like Robby) apologizing for freedom, and if the conservatives can tolerate speech better than we can, then we've lost our way.

    Needless to say, I'm very disappointed in you, Hugh.

  • Ship of Theseus||

    I don't have the 'freedom' to come into your house and say stupid shit.

  • Ship of Theseus||

    You seem to be confusing tolerance and freedom. And it's grating on me.

  • Fluffy||

    You don't.

    But Berkeley University is part of the University of California system, which makes every inch of it not effectively leased as dorms public property.

    Don't like that? Tough shit, don't have public universities then.

  • Ship of Theseus||

    Milo doesn't have a FUCKING RIGHT TO SPEAK THERE YOU INCREDIBLE FUCKING BUFFOON.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Again, the question is whether conservatives are more tolerant of free speech than SJWs.

    Not who has the right to speak where.

  • Ship of Theseus||

    That's not how this started. It started because you continued to confuse "free speech" with "tolerating speech."

  • Ken Shultz||

    We're talking about what this says about the modern conservative movement.

    See the quote and comment where this all started.

  • Fluffy||

    You are once again an incredibly worthless fucking cunt and moron.

    The group that had invited him had booked the space for the event.

    Period.

    So that group's assembly rights, Milo's speech rights, and the property rights of the taxpayers of California were deliberately attacked by a mob. And because the local authorities support that mob, they ordered their police to stand down and allow the attack.

    If you think that's perfectly fine, then you deserve to be hounded by violent mobs everywhere you go for the rest of your life, while the authorities refuse to act. And don't fucking come around and complain to me about it.

  • Brochettaward||

    He does when he's invited to go there. Students don't have a right to use violence to disrupt an invited guest from speaking on public campus you cunt.

  • Ship of Theseus||

    No, they don't. But Milo doesn't have a natural right to speak there, either, and that's the fucking point.

  • Brochettaward||

    Keep ignoring that he was an invited guest, and is often *paid* by other students on campus to give his speeches, you cunt.

  • Ship of Theseus||

    That's a conflict between the school and the student group. God you people are retarded.

  • Brochettaward||

    The students who pay tuition, and who have a right to have their rights protected? You know, instead of cops standing around and letting them be attacked and spit on by angry mobs? You don't have a leg to stand on. Milo had a right to speak there because he was invited by those students, events were approved, and as public universities they have an obligation to protect the rights of Milo and the students who invited him there.

  • Ship of Theseus||

    Once again, Milo's rights were not violated. This is pure nonsense. He was invited to speak, then he was uninvited (by a higher authority controlling the campus). This authority almost certainly violated the rights of the students to have someone they liked speak, but that doesn't transfer over to Milo via some magical libertarian property. Milo is not being "silenced." He is not in jail. He is not being fined. He is not banned from all public places.

    I get that this whole thing is made worse by the very existence of public universities (an awful thing), but that doesn't mean Milo has a right to speak anywhere at any time.

  • Ship of Theseus||

    B - see my apology below. It needs to be extended to you as well.

  • Fluffy||

    I am forced to conclude that you don't know the first thing about the event that we're discussing.

    We're not talking about any of the (numerous) times when a student group invited Milo to campus and then the administration said he couldn't come.

    (Frankly, I think that in the case of public universities that still violates his free speech rights - but that's not what we're discussing.)

    In the case of Berkeley, a student group invited him and the college administration allowed him to show up to speak. They did not uninvite him. Instead, a mob of other students used violence and property destruction to stop the event.

    If a mob uses violence and property destruction to stop me from engaging in speech and assembly, they have absolutely violated my natural rights.

    The police stood by and allowed this to happen, because the Berkeley municipal authorities personally preferred the rioters to the students holding the event, and for no other reason.

  • Ship of Theseus||

    Ah, well, then I'm wrong indeed. I did not know that (see my response above - clearly I was clueless).

    My sincerest apologies on that front.

  • Fluffy||

    Wow, thank you.

    Sorry I went off on a total rage tangent before setting all the stipulations.

  • Azathoth!!||

    HE DOES IF HE'S BEEN INVITED TO, HAS COMPLIED WITH ALL THE PRE-CONDITIONS DESIGNED TO MAKE IT IMPOOSIBLE FOR HIM TO SPEAK, AND STILL HAS A PROSPECTIVE AUDIENCE AFTER THE PRE-SPEECH RIOTS THE LEFT BLANKETS CAMPUSES WITH FOR WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF ANY CONSERVATIVE DARING TO BE INVITEDC TO SPEAK.

    See, I can use the capslock, too!

    Why do the protesters rights always have more primacy than the people who invited, and paid for someone to speak?

    The protesters can always not attend if they don't want to hear a conservative speak--so not hearing it isn't what they're about.

    They're about not letting anyone else hear it.

    And that's why they're wrong.

  • Long Woodchippers||

    And his opponents don't have a right to beat people in the street and loot businesses because they don't want to hear mean words.

    It's the "he shouldn't be allowed to say that" crowd. You guys are arguing about whether stat power has been used in specific circumstances. The point is the mass of people on the Left demanding state power be used.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Again, this is about the way conservative are advertising themselves.

    Look at Gillespie's quote that I was responding to:

    "What does it say about the modern conservative movement that CPAC was so desperate to get Milo on its stage in the first place? Nothing good."

    Does the conservatives demonstrating tolerance of a gay speaker and an intent to differentiate themselves from progressives on the issue of free speech say anything good about them?

    Yes, it does. It says they're trying to abandon some old anti-libertarian saws of theirs, and they're trying to embrace some more libertarian ones.

    And, yes, free speech is a libertarian issue--all day long.

    Some people use it to say awful things--so what? They're just words.

    No apologies from this libertarian for freedom.

  • Ship of Theseus||

    Apparently I'm an ass and an idiot myself. I would still say that it's dangerous to invoke "free speech" about the things that aren't, but in this case, what happened to Milo is a free speech issue. I do apologize.

  • ThomasD||

    Anytime anyone attempts to impede your ability to express your mind then free speech very much is the issue.

    Even if it does not meet the specific criteria of the 1st Amendment.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Tolerance means not trying to stifle or silence speech that you disagree with. Tolerance does not mean inviting a vile essentialist troll to speak at your conference. You can imagine how disappointed I am that you fail to understand the distinction.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Differentiating yourself from SJWs who can't tolerate someone's speech is demonstrating tolerance.

  • Hugh Akston||

    It's possible to differentiate yourself without embracing the worst excesses of the opposite.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Who said they were embracing anything but listening to him speak?

  • Not a True MJG||

    A keynote address is usually considered a Big Deal.

    Though as I said yesterday, I wish they did not uninvite him. I'm interested in what he would say as keynote speaker at CPAC. He has little to actually say, and I bet his attempts at humor would only reinforce the image of conservatives as retrograde. The two deserve each other.

  • Brochettaward||

    Hugh is a SJW. There's not much distinction. I can't even remember the last time I saw him actually argue a libertarian position.

  • ThomasD||

    Hugh is always happy to see socons play to their stereotype, even if he has to encourage it himself.

    If only because it confirms his own ignorance.

  • Remnant Psyche||

    When saying mean things is no longer allowed because muh feelings and muh safe space, trolling becomes political speech. Period.

    I support Milo's right to say the most vile, insulting things to triggered snowflakes who will call him a Nazi anyway just for being a conservative. Being polite has gotten the right nowhere. Beating the left at its own game is getting them somewhere. Why should anyone apologize for that?

  • Fluffy||

    What, specifically, makes him an asshole?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Oh, who knows what he actually says? It's awful. Everybody knows it's awful because everybody says so.

    Nowadays, that's what passes for epistemology around here.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Shocking to find that some people are more informed than you are, Ken.

  • Ken Shultz||

    They should answer Fluffy's question then!

    I'd bet 90% of the people who are going after him have never read what he's actually said.

    I certainly haven't.

    That's because it doesn't matter.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    Exactly! Why should I give a shit what Milo Yzzzzzzzzzz says? I don't know him. He doesn't owe me money. He might as Rachel Mzzzzzzzzz or Bill Mzzzzzzzzzzz or, for that matter, Nick Gzzzzzzzz.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    *might as well be

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Wow, Ken, you're even dumber than I thought.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Are you Tulpa?

  • Hail Rataxes||

    No, Tulpa is busy arguing with himself upthread.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Either he believes the things he says in which case he is a retrograde race/gender/cultural essentialist and a nationalist. Or he doesn't believe them and is just defaming broad categories of people for the sake of IRL trolling and provocative performance art. Either way he doesn't engage other people in a minimally respectful and good faith manner.

  • Fluffy||

    I asked you to specifically tell me what made him an asshole.

    Is that so hard?

    The word specific has a specific meaning.

    Either way he doesn't engage other people in a minimally respectful and good faith manner.

    I can't for the life of me name a single personality on Twitter that Milo ever engaged hostilely who deserves to be engaged in a minimally respectful and good faith manner.

    Every last one of them deserves contempt, disdain, spite, and malice from the get-go.

  • Brochettaward||

    Milo does nothing that provocateurs on the left haven't been doing for generations. He uses irreverent comedy to reach a younger audience. The horror!

  • Hugh Akston||

    My mistake in responding to you was believing that the goalposts were ever there in the first place.

  • Fluffy||

    I in no way, shape or form moved the goalposts.

    I wanted a specific example of him being an asshole.

    This quote:

    Either he believes the things he says in which case he is a retrograde race/gender/cultural essentialist and a nationalist

    ...does not provide that. It just throws up a few words you happen to think are synonyms for the word "asshole".

    This is a description of your conclusion(s). A true response to my question would be for you to go out and find a quote of him being an asshole, and explain how and why it makes him an asshole.

    I'm asking for that because in just about every case I've seen others bring up, when you dive into the exchange he was involved in he doesn't look like such an asshole at all.

    You seem to be ones of those people who thinks the fact that @jack thinks he's an asshole settles the matter, and since the management of Twitter is universally scum, it certainly does not.

  • ||

    Amen. That's been my experience as well.

  • Brochettaward||

    Who, exactly, does Milo defame? Go ahead and find a quote of his that would qualify as defamation against any individual or group.

    No, the only one being defamed here is Milo himself who is being accused of defending pedophilia despite not saying anything of the sort.

  • Not a True MJG||

    The gay actual conservatives are weirdos trying to pass off as normal. They want to wear business suits and have a house in the suburbs with 2.5 kids. Gay assholes who talk about their assholes reinforce asshole ideas about gay people, which is pretty groovy.

  • DarrenM||

    You seem to be very familiar with assholes. Personal experience?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    As it happens, the policy work being done by folks at Reason Foundation (the nonprofit that publishes this website) is revolutionizing K-12 education, public-sector pensions, transportation infrastructure, and more.

    Plus you actually won the popular vote.

    Don't be so defensive! So Yiannopoulos isn't intellectually curious about the third party. Just be happy people are mentioning the word libertarian.

  • Ship of Theseus||

    It's an admission that you have given up trying to work out what a good society would look like

    Uh, yeah m*****f*****. How much hubris must one have to decide what a "good society" should look like, and then go about forcing it upon other people. Holy shit, this guy.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    I don't think Milo is a libertarian, or a conservative. He's youtube comments that have somehow become sentient and taken on a human host.

  • Ship of Theseus||

    Truth. That's also why he doesn't need any kind of consistent principles. It's all "DESTROYS that Progtard" all the time.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    I haz a sad...

    Actually, go nuts. Spread it far and wide. Maybe it'll become a meme.

  • steedamike||

    He admitted on a video that he's ~50% contrarian, and that if it were the 90s, he'd be railing against the conservatives for free speech, anti-gay, other anti-conservative things, etc.

  • Raston Bot||

    reads like Milo just successfully trolled Nick.

  • Stephdumas||

    Blogger VoxDay posted some stuffs about Milo who might be worth to read.
    http://voxday.blogspot.ca/2017.....-milo.html
    http://voxday.blogspot.ca/2017.....ction.html

  • Ship of Theseus||

    VoxDay? Really?

  • Stephdumas||

    Yeah and as if wasn't enough, Natural News as well talk of Milo and compared the double-standards with Lena Dunham. https://archive.is/6DqAM

    I quoted an exterpt:"Personally, all these things described by both Lena Dunham and Milo Yiannopoulos sound a bit sickening and disturbed to me, but there is a gross double standard at work in how these two people are being judged by society. Lena is automatically forgiven and celebrated, while Milo is automatically condemned as "vile" even though he was the younger "boy" in the sexual relationship he talks about, not the older man.

    I'm not excusing his words, mind you. I personally find them to be rather twisted and abhorrent. But what's even more twisted is the wildly inconsistent way in which people are judged in our society based solely on their political leanings. Lena is a celebrated heroine because, well, she's a "progressive." Milo is a condemned sicko because he's a gay conservative. And a Trump supporter, by God!

    The double standard is suffocating. If Milo is bad, why isn't Lena just as bad? And why can't anybody dare talk about the pizza parlor pedos in Washington D.C. without being threatened into silence like what happened to Ben Swann?"

  • Raston Bot||

    i'm still gobsmacked Scahill backed out of his Maher appearance because Milo was on too.

  • Fluffy||

    What do you do when you're Matt Schlapp, the guy heading up the American Conservative Union, which runs the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (emphasis added), and it turns our your biggest draw to this year's event defends pedophilia?

    And what do you do when an over the hill douchebag with a tired shtick of wearing a leather jacket and pretending to be edgy can't write a simple article without including an untruth in its first line?

    Milo is probably not a libertarian, but how can I know that anything in your article is true when you lie in the first sentence?

    And that's what you did, Jacket, you toothless old hack. You lied. There is absolutely no way you don't know that this first sentence isn't true. But you were delighted to have the chance to phrase it that way, since hanging out with douchebag media types wearing your clown jacket for the last 30 years has turned you into a douchebag media type yourself.

  • Drake||

    I've been reading articles here for a long time. Some of the stuff I read early on by Balko, Welch and others really made me think and changed my mind on some issues.

    The writing has really declined over the last few years. These articles on Milo today are about it for me. I can read smug leftist talking-point hit pieces anywhere.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Dead thread, but I used to add Sullum (and Cathy + Michael Young, tbh) to that list.

    It's gotten pretty bad here over the last year or two---I thought it was Gillespie angling for a HuffPo gig, since Tim Cavanaugh already bailed to the times, and, really, would the WaPo or Gray Lady ever consider him? Now? I don't know what to think. They've certainly done yeoman's work driving off their commentariat.

  • Vhyrus||

    ^ This right here deserves a Pulitzer.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    "He doesn't call himself conservative. He calls himself more of a libertarian.... Some libertarians would deny that he's a libertarian."

    Actually, he calls himself a conservative, and he despises big-L Libertarians as autistic basement dwellers.

  • Raston Bot||

    he was calling himself a libertarian on Maher a few nights ago and championing free expression.

  • MarconiDarwin||

    Yes, but that makes the Republicans posing as libertarians on reason.com look bad. So, he is "conservative"

  • Stephdumas||

    Some folks call Milo a "cuckservative". http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/cuckservative

  • Squinja||

    What about the progs posing as libertarians on reason? Granted, they aren't posing really well, but don't they make reason look bad too?

  • Mickey Rat||

    And Maher had, in the past, described himself as a libertarian, which gies to show how useful self-descriptions of libertarianism are.

  • Brochettaward||

    Milo typically refers to himself as a civil or 'cultural' libertarian. I didn't catch him mention libertarianism at all on Maher.

  • Raston Bot||

    during the interview portion.. he said he's not conservative, he's libertarian. he may have said that twice.

  • DarrenM||

    I don't remember that either, but I wasn't explicitly listening for it. Even if he said it, I wouldn't make a big deal about it. "Libertarian" seems to cover many viewpoints, just as "conservative" or "liberal" do.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    he was calling himself a libertarian on Maher a few nights ago and championing free expression.

    No contradiction there: he advocates small government, the Constitution, and classical liberalism. That is, he is a small-l libertarian. What he despises is Libertarians, i.e. the Libertarian party and movement.

  • Remnant Psyche||

    Right. "Libertarian" as in, "our welfare state is suicidally generous, but I don't want any border enforcement because the survival of the country is less important than being autistically rigorous about the purity of my libertarian principles."

    I'm mean, I'm a libertarian, and that shit makes me cringe.

  • Jickerson||

    Why would someone vehemently insisting on sticking to their principles make you cringe?

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Forcing Americans to pay for the welfare, education, and health care of economic refugees is not a libertarian principle.

  • LarryWilson||

    Obsessed with weed?

    No more than soccer moms are obsessed with coffee and wine.

    If obsession with weed makes someone libertarian, then our gov't has been libertarian for decades.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    That right there is probably funnier than anything Milo has ever said.

  • GILMORE™||

    (posting twice)

    Regardless of whatever you (or the writers here) might think about this otherwise-unimportant-"guy with an opinion" =

    Note that they spend 99% talking about him, and 'quoting him' only via 3rd parties and/or obliquely
    (so you're never permitted to hear anything directly from the source, in context)

    All this guy does is talk. And he makes videos every single speech/interview he gives..

    Yet somehow the best proof of subhuman-awfulness they can dig up about the guy is his candid admission that he seduced a 20+something when he was a teenager.. They've written dozens of posts about how bloody awful and triggering he is, and how many times have they sourced their complaints to actual footage of his remarks? Never, AFAIK.

    See, we should celebrate trans-teens joining the boy-scouts, and vigorously oppose Romeo + Juliet laws, and promote 'Free Minds', and oppose Affirmative Consent laws which de-facto criminalize voluntary behavior.... Oh, but if a *conservative* gay guy discloses anything in public about his past sex life? Suddenly its classy to start labeling people "pedos" in the press.

    Milo doesn't offend me; watching people engaged in intellectually-dishonest smear-jobs does. I'm tired of it. Which is why i'm already one foot out the door.

  • DOOMco||

    *standing ovation*

  • block30||

    *Also joins the ovation.*

  • ||

    Third ovation.

  • Brochettaward||

    I appreciate that Nick actually highlighted things that Milo has actually said, at least in a few instances.

    I find it highly hypocritical that an organization that frequently adopts controversial editorial positions with regards to defending people on sex offender lists, and which itself has published articles that are critical of black and white consent laws jumping on the bash Milo train and categorizing his statements as a defense of pedophilia. Milo did not defend pedophilia. The argument he made would in fact be right at home on Reason, if it was simply cleaned up a bit (I'm referring to his use of some vulgar language/jokes - not his sentiments).

    But it's OK. People will remember this stuff come donation time.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Finally someone said it. Criticizing age of consent laws and advocating more sexual freedom for adolescents is common in libertarian discourse. Milo is being excoriated as if he advocated child rape.

  • MarconiDarwin||

    Most libertarians I know wouldn't claim Milo as one of our own
    Silly people! There is No True Libertarian. And for goddamn sure Milo cannot be one. Not now.

  • Brochettaward||

    As far as being a free speech advocate, Milo beats the hell out of Robby. I'd wager he's more libertarian than Robby in many ways.

  • Fluffy||

    That's a good point.

    These assholes publish Robby and Chapman, and they want to play Who's a Libertarian with us?

    And they fucking fired Lucy. Don't think we've forgotten that. Lucy had to go, but Robby is a-ok.

  • Not a True MJG||

    From the commentariat POV, Lucy's lucky she got out when she did. If she were still posting here, she'd now be considered a SJW prog.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    Did anyone ask Lou Reed what his take is on all this?

  • Eric||

    If libertarian thought is ever going to be widely accepted, you are going to have to widen the tent enough to accept people who come at it from the middle or left (as well as the right).

  • Ship of Theseus||

    Did you read Milo's quote about libertarians, though? Seriously?

    You can go with the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, but that only takes you so far. Words have meanings.

  • Remnant Psyche||

    Did he hurt your feelings? Who gives a shit.

    Milo believes a lot of things I think are wrong. That's why I want him talking. That's a commitment to freedom of speech, not celebrating because someone who says things you don't like got shut down with a false pedophilia allegation.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    Milos and PewdiePies are the canaries in the cultural mine.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    That is a sick fuckin mine, friendo.

  • TGoodchild||

    "Most libertarians I know wouldn't claim Milo as one of our own"

    I don't think it's up to you or them, Nick.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    As a classical liberal, I'm not sure I'd claim much of the Reason staff as "one of my own", despite their occasionally vaguely libertarianish views.

  • colorblindkid||

    I don't consider him any less libertarian than Robby. We're a big tent.

  • Rational Exuberance||

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    You know who else made you know who else jokes?

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    The CBC? Okay, she wasn't joking.

  • Cyto||

    This many comments in and nobody went for the obvious?

    Clearly they are confused by the similar-sounding words: Libertarian and Libertine. The guy is clearly a Libertine.

    I understand the confusion. Lots of people confuse us with libertines, what with so many libertines among us.

  • Eric||

    That's exactly what I was thinking watching him on Bill Maher. It was the first time I'd ever heard him talk and I'm now completely confused as to what the term 'conservative' means in today's parlance. In fact, twenty years ago, before the left went absolutely bat-shit, I was thinking he would be considered a lefty for his social views.

  • Conchfritters||

    "....has been more watered-down than the beer at Delta House for a very long time." How does one water down beer? Asking seriously - - I never knew this was a thing. Watered down liquor, yes, watered down beer?

  • Jerryskids||

    There's a couple of alt-rightish sites I regularly lurk on, back when Milo first became a thing they all said (more or less) that Milo was a useful idiot. As long as he riled up the right people he was okay but he was a disposable weapon and nothing more. These are the same people who claim Trump is their hammer, too, the wrecking ball for the establishment but not The One who's going to rebuild a new world order. Trump's too Jewy for them, I think.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    (((New York real-estate tycoon)))

  • josh||

    Once again (see my comment below), I learn I should read the comments before typing. But I'm lazy, so I'll just say that great minds think alike and still not read the comments.

  • Uncle Jay||

    RE: CPAC Organizer Tries To Pawn Off Milo Yiannopoulos as "Libertarian"

    Milo Yiannopoulos is much of a libertarian as Hillary is a republican.

  • josh||

    Milo is the kind of person that the left and right both use to tweak and irritate the other side because they think it's funny or useful even. They're also the first people the left and right will disregard when the going gets tough, and in the next breath claim that it's an insult that anyone would associate their movement with that kind of person. In other words, they're useful idiots...they find a use for their behaving as idiots whether they're coming or going.

  • rthomp62||

    But, neither the left or the right want anything to do with Milo...therefore, he's a Libertarian? Gotta love the logic.

  • DarrenM||

    and it turns our your biggest draw to this year's event defends pedophilia?

    I expected better of writers here, but it turns out you're just another hack making dishonest claims. Milo Y. has never defended pedophilia. You either don't know what it is or are deliberately lying about it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are just too lazy to actually look it up.

  • Mauser||

    Milo is obviously an ahole statist pawn of conservatives, however, he does cause much wailing & gnashing of teeth in he feminist movement, it's awesome watching him debate these SJW snowflakes.

  • rmodiz||

    He didn't defend paedophilia.

    Words have meanings. "Fascism" "Terrorism" "Paedophilia" These words have more precise meanings than their connotations, which can be summed up as "yuck." How is reasoned discourse possible when every concept shivers out of focus?

    So no. He didn't defend paedophilia.
    ------------------
    'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

    Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
    'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

    'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

    'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

    'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

  • Tony||

    Conservative, libertarian... let's just say it's not a marxist conspiracy why you people are underrepresented in the intellectual pursuits.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    If he's a pot-smoking, gay, pedophile with weird hair, then clearly he must be a Libertarian.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    If he's a pot-smoking, gay, pedophile with weird hair, then clearly he must be a Libertarian.

    He didn't describe himself as a pedophile, he described himself as consenting jailbait.

  • buybuydandavis||

    it turns our your biggest draw to this year's event defends pedophilia

    Nick goes scumbag. #LyingPress

    As for who is the true libertarian, I'll go with Milo. He wants to defend Western Civilization against destruction.

    Reason likes liberty for the Ruling Reptiles and foreigners who would destroy liberty, but not so much for American peasants.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Benjamin Tucker's critique of Herbert Spencer in 1884 applies to Reason:

    "It will be noticed that in these later articles, amid his multitudinous illustrations (of which he is as prodigal as ever) of the evils of legislation, he in every instance cites some law passed, ostensibly at least, to protect labor, alleviate suffering, or promote the people's welfare. He demonstrates beyond dispute the lamentable failure in this direction. But never once does he call attention to the far more deadly and deep-seated evils growing out of the innumerable laws creating privilege and sustaining monopoly. You must not protect the weak against the strong, he seems to say, but freely supply all the weapons needed by the strong to oppress the weak. He is greatly shocked that the rich should be directly taxed to support the poor, but that the poor should be indirectly taxed and bled to make the rich richer does not outrage his delicate sensibilities in the least. Poverty is increased by the poor laws, says Mr. Spencer. Granted; but what about the rich laws that caused and still cause the poverty to which the poor laws add? That is by far the more important question; yet Mr. Spencer tries to blink it out of sight."

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Free" markets

    Corporate limited liability
    Government monopolies in "intellectual property"
    Differential tax treatment for wages and capital gains
    Tax on income instead of property
    Violation of Lockean Proviso

    A lot of rage against violations of the free market. Except when it helps those who Own over those who Labor.

  • geo||

    Wikipedia says he is a libertarian so it must be true! ..........Really, it says that. Can't any libertarians figure out how to edit Wikipedia?

  • trudybeauty||

    You have to wonder why "Libertarians" can't seem to get their membership right. In other words, they are constantly having to disown various odious people and slough off various odious views. Perhaps it's because "Libertarian" is a cover for all these and has no real or, certainly, non-odious members.
    After all, if the core of your system is "selfishness is good", then this is a group that will always be made up of people who are primarily jerks and narcissists and secondarily...whatever.

  • Shinin' Pete||

    So what's this all about? Did Milo and Gillespie both show up at a cocktail party wearing the same outfit?

  • Robert||

    conservatives and Republicans have almost completely squandered their power and influence throughout the 21st century. When George W. Bush and the GOP ran the federal government, they busted the budget in a way that would embarrass drunken sailors the world over.


    What power & influence did they have? Only the democratic power & influence that comes from not departing far from what the electorate wants, such as drunken-sailoring the budget.

  • trudybeauty||

    You have to wonder why "Libertarians" can't seem to get their membership right. In other words, they are constantly having to disown various odious people and slough off various odious views. Perhaps it's because "Libertarian" is a cover for all these and has no real or, certainly, non-odious members.
    After all, if the core of your system is "selfishness is good", then this is a group that will always be made up of people who are primarily jerks and narcissists and secondarily...whatever.

  • MikeP2||

    "and it turns our your biggest draw to this year's event defends pedophilia?

    so...Nick...you're jumping on the character assassination bandwagon too? Pathetic and sad. Did you even bother to listen to the tape or read the transcript? Milo was speaking about his experiences in an open and vulgar manner. So what. The totality of his public actions do not at all support a "defense of pedophilia". By repeating such, you are jumping on the prog bandwagon of personal destruction to the altar of the left. Fug that and fug them.

    "But does he have anything to say when he's actually allowed to speak? Derp, not really"

    Have you ever actually listened to him? I'm not talking about the "let's poke the hyper left for fun" speaking, but the large about of rational and poignant speeches he's given. He aligns with libertarians on a number of topics and is an intelligent voice on important topics, particularly free speech. Sad, Nick, really sad.

  • Jo Rae Perkins||

    Milo stated he is a Libertarian.... however, he isn't even a U.S. Citizen. He is a citizen of G.B.
    CPAC is a private organization and has the right to invite or uninvite whom they want. Actually I am surprised he was ever on their list of speakers.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Milo stated he is a Libertarian

    No, he has not. He has said that he is a libertarian, i.e., someone who believes in classical liberalism. He has nothing but contempt for Libertarians, i.e., the US political movement. And if you read Reason, you might start to understand why.

  • Bischkva||

    One thing I wish libertarians would stop doing is distancing themselves from the political lepers on the left and right. You guys miss some critical points:

    1) libertarianism wins and loses minor battles but never catches on
    2) you (and "liberty" in general) still have approximately the same cache you did 30 years ago when I declared myself a libertarian, which is close to zero
    3) rant and rave about Trump's authoritarianism but understand that this past election has made the battle lines prominent. The cultural war is between sanity and insanity, not right and left. There are elements of "liberty" -- depending on your perspective -- on both sides but the question you should ask yourselves is: do you want the national conversation to focus on lesbian cakes, tranny bathrooms, the minutest identity politics, or on stuff that people actually care about?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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