MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

The Liberal Media's Answer to Ideological Diversity Concerns: Ban Conservatives, Hire Socialists

When Kevin Williamson isn't welcome but Joseph Stalin is

WilliamsonReason TVShould the liberal, conservative-disdaining media be even more liberal and disdainful of conservatives? It would be hard to make a better argument for including a broader range of right-leaning perspectives at mainstream publications than this recent, tone-deaf plea from New York magazine's Eric Levitz to do just the opposite.

Responding to The Atlantic's much-discussed (at Reason and elsewhere) hiring and firing of conservative journalist Kevin Williamson over his comments about hanging women who have had abortions, Levitz makes note of a recent discussion about the Williamson affair between Atlantic Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg and writer Ta-Nehisi Coates, the transcript of which was leaked to The Huffington Post. Goldberg claims to desire intellectual diversity at his publication—though not if it means making women who work at The Atlantic and have had abortions feel unsafe—and asked Coates whether he was concerned that narrowing the bounds of acceptable discourse would hurt the magazine:

Coates: Again, I don't think it's a question of narrowing. I think it's where the lines are drawn.

Goldberg: Well, it is if you bring the lines in.

Coates: Well, no, you open it up. You understand what I'm saying? Like, as I said before, I don't think 15 years ago or 20 years ago we would have ran "The Case For Reparations." So that means it's opened up in a different direction. I think if we publish kick-ass stories, very little of this will actually matter.

Coates was essentially saying that the publication could still have intellectual diversity without conservative opinions, as long as it shifted the goalpost in the other direction—i.e., by including more perspectives that were further and further left.

Levitz takes this ball and runs with it, providing two basic arguments for doing so: first, most conservative opinion writers are completely irrelevant to the conservative movement as it exists the age of Trump; and second, conservative arguments are obviously wrong and thus not worth debating at all.

Socialist arguments, on the other hand, Levitz asserts, have yet to be debunked, and so mainstream magazines and op-ed pages would be well-served by hiring more advocates of such views. According to Levitz:

There are a lot of interesting questions that currently divide liberals from the socialist left. And exploring those disagreements would almost certainly do more to challenge the average Atlantic reader intellectually than running Kevin Williamson's latest diatribe against the shiftless poor people he grew up among (but proved himself better than).

Take the most fundamental question dividing left-liberals from socialists: Should the means of production be socialized? Many on the center-left regard this as a dead debate—one that Joseph Stalin settled decisively long ago.

But the events of recent decades have lent some credence to the socialists' case...

I'm fairly convinced that full-on socialism leads to poverty and totalitarianism, but yes, journalistic outlets that strive for ideological diversity should make space for smart writers to present the best case for this system. It seems incoherent, though, to insist that Williamson-esque opinions like abortion is murder and should be dealt with as such and poor people bear much responsibility for their lot in life are uninteresting or beyond the pale while Joseph Stalin was on to something is not. To think that severe social conservatism is so kooky as to be un-printable, but Stalinism is at least debatable, requires a certain amount of unhealthy ideological blindness. These kinds of contradictions are what result from blithely and selectively declaring certain conversations off-limits.

It can be difficult to overcome our biases, but the project of opinion journalism requires good writers and editors to do so. Even bad or extreme arguments may contain kernels of truth, or may contribute something to the public's awareness that the conventional, moderate liberal punditocracy would have missed. For instance, virtually the entire liberal press seemed assured of Hillary Clinton's victory. Had they listened more closely to the far-left grievances of the Bernie Sanders wing, they might have been better prepared for the actual outcome of the 2016 election.

Showcasing the various shades of opinion on the right is no less vital than extending a platform to a newly relevant socialist left. That might mean including a Trump-sympathetic writer from time to time, instead of yet another neoconservative. It would certainly mean recognizing that there are a whole lot of people—in the country at large, and within intellectual circles—who dissent from both liberal and leftist orthodoxy and have something worthwhile to say. As New York Times columnist Ross Douthat wrote in response to Levitz, "You've got conservatives representing the center-right flank of #TheResistance, conservatives experimenting with European-style nationalism and Catholic integralism, conservatives for isolation and internationalism and everything in between. These arguments aren't shaping Trumpian policymaking because nothing is likely to shape Trumpian policymaking. But it is very likely that they'll shape future formations of right-wing and centrist policy, and have influence on the liberal-left debate Levitz cites as well."

It's true that op-ed conservatism doesn't have very much influence in the Trump administration at the moment. But the further left that the opinion pages move, the easier it is for Trump to rally his base around the idea that the media hates them. If you think Trump voters are too reliant on Fox News, talk radio, and explicit conspiracy sites, you should be at least a little wary of exacerbating this problem. Widening the range of permissible views on the left while banishing conventional, widely held conservative opinions hardly seems like an antidote for the polarization afflicting American discourse.

Photo Credit: Reason TV

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.

  • damikesc||

    But, the Socialist arguments have been debunked. Explicitly and repeatedly. That he does not seem aware of Venezuela indicates that the writer is an insipid moron.

    It is time for adherents of Marx to be viewed in the same light as adherents of Hitler...just more willing to kill.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Worse. Socialists murdered 100M people last century, while capitalism lifted billions out of poverty. The invasion of Poland was a collaboration between two socialist countries.

  • Tony||

    What about when American capitalists set up dictatorships in Latin America for the reason that we didn't like them democratically electing socialist governments? Whose hands are those deaths on?

  • John||

    You mean like Chile? Those countries all have turned out to be much freer and prosperous than their socialist counterparts. What is going on in Venezuela today is what people like you would do to the entire world if you had the power.

  • Tony||

    So I should jot you down as in favor the US installing dictators in other countries?

  • John||

    If the alternative is Cuba and Venezuela sure. You are in favor of Cuba and Venezuela. I will happily answer for Pinochet as the only way to prevent people like you from obtaining power. Now you answer for Cuba and Venezuela. That is the system you want isn't it? You are a socialist right?

  • Just Say'n||

    Eh...you're both wrong. Overthrowing democratically elected leaders of a country is some evil statist shit. There was nothing good about Pinochet, just as there is nothing good about Cuba and Venezuela. But, overthrowing a government at the behest of business is the opposite of 'capitalism'- that's pure 'corporatism'.

  • John||

    There was nothing good about Pinochet,

    What is good about Pinochet is he saved the country from communism. Sometimes life doesn't give you good options. And this is especially true when dealing with murderous fanatics which is all communists ever are.

  • Just Say'n||

    I'm not going to deny that socialists at their core are just cold blooded murderers. I'm surprised that that's even up for debate.

    I don't ascribe to the notion that two wrongs can make a right, otherwise that leads down a lot of terrible interventions which serves no purpose other than enhancing the power and authority of the state.

  • Just Say'n||

    *subscribe

  • John||

    I don't ascribe to the notion that two wrongs can make a right, otherwise that leads down a lot of terrible interventions which serves no purpose other than enhancing the power and authority of the state.

    In a situation like that, your choices are to live by your principles and watch the communists destroy and enslave the country or stand up and do something. At that point, your principles have just become a rationalization for cowardice. Two wrongs do make a right or at least prevent a worse wrong sometimes.

  • Just Say'n||

    So then we should invade Venezuela?

  • John||

    No. Why would you think that? But if you are in Venezuela, you probably should have shot Chavez or if not him then Maduro a long time ago. Saying that people threatened by communists better be prepared to kill them in no way means that we are obligated to invade any communist country. Why would you think otherwise? Sometimes I really wonder where people get such ideas.

  • Just Say'n||

    Because Pinochet was installed in a CIA orchestrated coup and you were just applauding that

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Just Sayin' is totally right here. Just sayin'.

  • DarrenM||

    Is it wrong to avoid the greater of two evils? You have to choose and live with the options that are available in reality, not in some alternate fantasy universe.

  • tommhan||

    Sorry but two wrongs sometimes is the closest to right you can get in some circumstances.

  • fdog50||

    What was mainly good (or at least not as bad) about Pinochet is that he voluntarily left office after allowing a national election. How often does that happen with Marxist governments? But today you would be ostracized as a fascist on almost every college campus in the U. S. for even making a comment that Pinochet did less damage to Chile than the Castro brothers and Guevara did to Cuba.

  • Azathoth!!||

    There was nothing good about Pinochet?

    He stopped the communist annexation of Chile cold.

    He slaughtered communist activist who were trying to destroy his country. 4000 of them.

    4000. Actual communist 'revolutionaries'. Not a hundred million inconvenient people.

    People need to remember that the March through the Institutions started a long time ago. Of course Pinochet is called a monster--it's leftists writing the histories. To them, what he did WAS monstrous. He stopped them in their tracks.

  • Paloma||

    The Chilean people supported overwhelmingly the military coup in Chile in 1973. The CIA did as well but they didn't initiate any coup, nor did they have the power to overthrow any government without the support of the populace. And Pinochet wasn't even involved in the coup.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony, you are in favor of socialist countries installing dictators in other countries.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    "So I should jot you down as in favor the US installing dictators in other countries?"

    Tony, when can I jot you down as in favor of drinking your Drano?

  • Libertymike||

    That might kill the Drano.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Either way, it would be interesting to see.

  • khm001||

    Tony,

    When the choice is socialism or dictators, which were the ONLY choices in the places you're talking about, obviously the correct choice is dictators. Nothing is worse than socialism.

  • ||

    Your 'whataboutism' doens't negate the facts put forth by Scarecrow & Damikesc.

  • damikesc||

    Those dictatorships tend to lead to open societies.

    Marxist dictatorships do not do the same.

    Pinochet was worlds better than any Marxist dictator.

  • Paloma||

    Absolutely

  • ace_m82||

    You gonna call the US government "capitalists"? Are you daft, man?

  • Tony||

    It was done explicitly in the name of capitalism.

  • Microaggressor||

    And the lowly proles were spared from socialist enslavement as a result. The ends don't justify the means, but can't you recognize the least-bad outcome from the available choices had a positive impact on the lives of the poor? Or do you still cling to the faith that socialism serves the interest of the poor, even while people are starving in Venezuela to this day?

  • Tony||

    Give me a fucking break.

  • ace_m82||

    And? Abusus non tollit usum.

    If I murder a whole bunch of people and then claim to be a Burnie (TM) supporter, does that make him at fault? Are socialists in general at fault for what I choose to do?

    No, look to the "banana wars"; it was a monopolist/governmental relationship that caused all those deaths.

    Capitalism has nothing to do with what governments do. If someone who owns capital pays off government to kill people, that's his fault and the fault of the government. It'd be the same as blaming everyone who owns a van for the mass murder in Toronto.

  • MarkLastname||

    So if someone enslaves others in the name of freedom, you count that as an indictment of freedom rather than of slavery.

  • Paloma||

    By the Chilean people. Although the Chilean military had no economic principles. That's why Pinochet tapped Milton Friedman to begin with. Pinochet at least knew what he DIDN'T know.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Tell us how many people those right wing dictators murdered. Compare and contrast with the 100-200M murdered by socialists last century, who continue to murder today.

  • MarkLastname||

    Really, private companies I talked dictatorships in Latin America?

    Oh wait, no, you mean the US government installed dictators in Latin America to help politicians' friends make money. What a great argument for expanding the role of the government in the economy.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Hopefully you all are beginning to understand why we must bring back McCarthyism and destroy all the progressives. They are a literal existential threat to America.

  • Tony||

    Destroy meaning what, specifically? I am genuinely interested.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Elias seems incapable of tackling any issue without promoting violence.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    When did McCarthyism involve employing violence? Please enlighten me.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Tony, people like you are subversives. You should be treated as such. And certainly Marxist media organizations should be stopped for their propaganda. Then you have government officials like John Brennan have voted for CPUSA candidates, yet the man was CIA director? He should be on a blacklist, like most of Obama's administration.

  • mtrueman||

    "It is time for adherents of Marx to be viewed in the same light as adherents of Hitler..."

    Hitler was surprisingly reliant on the work and opinion of women for a fascist. He relied on Gerta Troost for architecture, Leni Riefenstahl for film, and supported Winnifred Wagner as head of the Bayreuth festival. Architecture, film and music may not mean much to commenters here, but they were central to Hitler. It wasn't that the war had taken away all the men and left him with women. This goes back to his first years in power, and in any case his interest in architecture and film projects waned with WWII.

  • damikesc||

    His ideas for architecture were quite bad (bigger ain't always better) and Leni is basically the only time he decided to ignore Goebbels. He let Goebbels (and Rosenberg) run the cinema while he watched Disney cartoons and the like.

    He liked Wagner because she was fervently supportive of him. If she was not, he would have had no use for her.

  • mtrueman||

    There was no shortage of men who were fervently supportive of Hitler. What I found surprising is how much he relied on women for the projects closest to his heart, apart from war and genetic hygiene. It runs against the view that fascists saw women as baby making machines and little else.

  • BYODB||

    I think you're confusing Italian fascists with German fascists. The key there isn't the fascism but the nationality. Japanese fascists were also, for what it's worth, quite different from their Italian and German counterparts.

  • mtrueman||

    I'm only talking about Adolf Hitler, and his reliance on women in the projects that he cared most about. He was an Austrian, not and Italian, or German for that matter.

  • FlameCCT||

    He relied on the work of Margaret Sanger for "genetic hygiene" aka eugenics.

  • mtrueman||

    Sanger was an American who evidently never met Adolf Hitler. I don't think he relied on her in any sense of the word. The three women I mentioned were German and worked closely with Hitler, even over objections of party members who questioned his wisdom in working with women over men.

  • Ariki||

    His views on architecture were good in context.
    Like everything the Nazi's did, it was about projecting "power". Large, imposing, solid buildings that inspire a sense of awe, control and dread in a population is quite quite a useful thing for totalitarians.

    It's no coincidence that the Nazi governments buildings and the USA government buildings borrow heavily from Greek & Roman styles. It is an attempt to appropriate the power of the past and project it into the present and future.

    Had the Nazi's visions been architecturally aligned with the "modernist" or Artdeco movements of the time they probably wouldn't have been Nazis.

  • Paloma||

    USA government buildings built at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th were designed in the Neoclassical style that was popular at the time. It was popular not just in architectures, but also in painting, literature, poetry and the arts in general. It dovetailed nicely with the Enlightenment ideas of the Founding Fathers.

    Soon afterwards the Romantic movement took over, especially in France.

  • Paloma||

    My point would be that Hitler's Germany was in no way a bastion of Enlightenment ideas or sensibilities.

  • mtrueman||

    "My point would be that Hitler's Germany was in no way a bastion of Enlightenment ideas or sensibilities."

    It was the only state to take eugenics seriously. I'm not sure that this alone qualifies it for bastionhood, but eugenics is most certainly a child of the Enlightenment.

  • BYODB||

    I assume you're a fan of the Palace of the Parliament too.

  • MarkLastname||

    So, Hitler was a proto-feminist? What's your point?

  • mtrueman||

    I was pointing out the fact that Hitler relied on the opinions of women in areas which were important to him, film, architecture and music. I found it counter-intuitive because of the traditional fascist view of women.

  • Just Say'n||

    Robby, you had the best take on the whole Williamson matter when you asked why neoconservatives were the only brand of conservatism that liberal publications were comfortable with.

    So, I guess it makes sense that socialists, like neoconservatives, who have blood on their hands would be welcome at a publication, but anyone who questions social liberalism is beyond the pale.

  • GILMORE™||

    Robby is just recycling things other people have already said here.

    The Douthat twitter-thread (linked above, also here) he quotes from is worth a read.

    If there's any insight to be had from the various scribbler's takes on that NYmag piece... its not the pundit's reactions,but the comments from lefty readers, which would help show why left-media is increasingly required to be a hermetic, ideological bubble world.

  • Just Say'n||

    Soave's take about neoconservatism was after Williamson was first fired. Get fruit sushi a break.

  • Sevo||

    "...I'm fairly convinced that full-on socialism leads to poverty and totalitarianism,..."

    Personally, I'm fairly convinced that gravity sucks.

  • Ken Hagler||

    No, vacuum sucks. Gravity is just a downer.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Gravity is just a theory.

    Much like evolution.

  • Ariki||

    Technically it pushes......

  • SIV||

    "You've got conservatives representing the center-right flank of #TheResistance

    Matt Welch!

  • Just Say'n||

    Firstly, it's "newly woke" Matt Welch. Secondly, I think he's referring to every libertarian's hero (because he doesn't like Trump and principals are more important than principles) Bill Kristol and the good people at the Weekly Standard

  • ||

    Seriously. I think he switched to soy or something for his Froot Loops.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    I may not be a conservative and feel no real sympathy for Williamson losing his job, but it's funny to see how the media's response to shooting itself in its collective foot is to fire more frequently. Even Barney Fife seemed to exercise caution for a little while after each such mistake.

    I can't help but be reminded of that Red Guard student group under Mao who went so far overboard in their support they themselves were deemed a threat and had to be purged.

  • albo||

    Let the left-wing media retreat to their safe space debating whether they should run society as an autonomous collective or a self-perpetuating autocracy or an an archo-syndicalist commune. The rest of us will move on to working for greater personal liberty

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    By the "rest of us," do you mean conservatives, who turn every campus they control into a nonsense-teaching, censorship-shackled, science-disdaining, viewpoint-discriminatory, snowflakey goober factory?

    Our liberal-libertarian mainstream needs no pointers from right-wingers on censorship, scholarship, or tolerance.

  • Fancylad||

    Can you give me an example of a secular conservative university that's censorship-shackled, science-disdaining, viewpoint-discriminatory, snowflakey goober factory?

    Anyhow, science denial is the average progressive stock-in-trade. They wallow in anti-science pathologies like homeopathy, anti-GMO, "organics", chakras, gender denial, social psychology, political science and sociology.

  • Fooseven||

    They treat sciences and data just like the law - - only important when they agree with it.

  • Ariki||

    Post modernism. The facts are what I feel they are.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Why limit the discussion to "secular," other than to provide an opportunity for authoritarian right-wing rubes to seem to compete in this space?

    Carry on, clinger.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Why limit the discussion to "secular,"

    Arthur L. Hicklib doesn't like it when his tribe is shown to be the tribe of SCIENCE! rather than science.

  • Macy's Window||

    You are making shit up to fit your prejudices. In fact, conservative campuses -- whether secular or religious -- have infinitely more real debate and respect for opposing ideas than the vast majority of leftist campuses.

    But that is to be expected as they have confidence in their ideas, unlike you leftist fascists.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The debates concerning evolution, the research concerning stem cells, the discussions concerning the age of the Earth, and the like at Liberty, Grove City, Bob Jones, Ouachita Baptist, Franciscan, Wheaton, and Regent must be fascinating.

    Carry on, clingers. More suppression of science to flatter childish superstition, please.

  • Paradigm||

    At least the conservative campuses allow other points of view, including when a student doesn't agree with the teaching. Leftist campuses use shit like Title IX and "bias response teams" (uttered in stereotype German accent). I'll take Hillsdale or Grove City over a sewer like Evergreen any day. I can ignore the religious stuff and nobody will say a word. Progressives do not know the meaning of "live and let live."

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    At least the conservative campuses allow other points of view,

    said someone unfamiliar with the speech and conduct codes, and research bans, at conservative-controlled campuses.

  • Paradigm||

    I don't see conservative students or professors shouting down opposing points of view, or hitting people with bike locks, or blocking roads.

    You're subhuman.

  • khm001||

    "who turn every campus they control into a nonsense-teaching, censorship-shackled, science-disdaining, viewpoint-discriminatory, snowflakey goober factory?"

    Blaming what so-called "liberals" do to campuses on conservatives is exactly the type of bald faced lies I expect from the likes of you.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Bigoted, backward, and authoritarian is no way to go through life, khm001.

    But's is a free country, so enjoy your conservative journey.

  • Paradigm||

    > Bigoted, backward...blah...blah...blah

    Not bigoted. Just cognizant of your absolute inferiority in intellect and earning potential.

  • damikesc||

    And, Robby, it is easy for Trump to tell his voters the press hates them.

    The press DOES hate them.

  • Marshal||

    Don't feel special, they hate you too.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "Socialist arguments, on the other hand, Levitz asserts, have yet to be debunked, and so mainstream magazines and op-ed pages would be well-served by hiring more advocates of such views".

    Every socialist argument has been thoroughly shown to be wrong.

  • John||

    I am going to stand up for the Atlantic here. Why do they owe the world hiring a conservative any more than National Review or Breitbart owe the world hiring a liberal? Everyone knows that these publications are liberal. And since their readerships are liberal, it makes sense.

    No one other than beltway right-leaning journalists gives a shit about Kevin D. Williamson. Sorry but the liberal media doesn't owe anyone a job concern trolling conservatives, which is all Williamson was being hired to do. Williamson got the job because he is infamous for viciously attacking other conservatives, not because he is a conservative.

    Williamson didn't get that job because he is an asshole who said things that were both stupid and offensive to the Atlantic staff and readership. What was the Atlantic supposed to do? Alienate large portions of its staff and readership to hire Williamson? I don't think so.

    The worst part about all of this is that it just shows the sorry high school cliquish mentality of the beltway right. No one cared when National Review canned Ann Coulter, John Derbyshire and Mark Steyn for saying things deemed offensive. But, they were not one of the cool people. But the Atlantic fires Williamson and that is somehow different. No, it is really not. The only difference is that Williamson is considered one of the in crowd for some reason and the others were not.

  • Dick Puller, Attorney at Law||

    Of course the Atlantic doesn't owe anyone a job, and I have no particular love of Williamson.

    On the other hand, they hired him knowing perfectly well he held views controversial to their readers. That was the point of hiring him. Then they turned around and fired him for doing exactly what they hired him to do.

    You might even get the impression that they hired him just for the pleasure of humiliating him by firing him.

    Of course, I'm sure the Atlantic would never do anything as petty as that...

  • John||

    I think they hired him because they live in a bubble and really had no understanding of how offensive he could be and just how much the staff and their readers would hate him. They also were dumb enough to think that they could hide how offensive he had been by deleting his Twitter account. Williamson deleted his Twitter account as soon as he got the job. So, all the claims about Williamson having all of these principles and standing behind what he says are bullshit. When it came time to get a paycheck he happily sent everything he had ever said down the memory hole. The fact that he did that shows that both he and the Atlantic knew there would be a problem with the things he said. The mistake they made was that they were too dumb to realize nothing ever goes away on the internet, especially when you have made as many enemies as Williamson.

    Williamson tried to hide his past and got caught. That is really what happened here.

  • Fancylad||

    If a mother stabbed her post-natal kid through the head with a screw-driver and killed them, would you be all twitterpated if someone argued she should get the death penalty?

    Now, I know many of you believe in the Birth-Canal Fairy who magically grants personhood only to those that pass through that sacred hall; but some people, like Williamson, actually think it's a myth, and think the pre-natal kid was just as human before his mystical transit, as after.
    To these unbelieving people, killing your kid before they're blessed by the holy Birth-Canal Fairy is just as heinous as post-nataly, and there's nothing offensive with saying they deserve the worst penalty for doing so.

  • John||

    I am pro life you idiot. I don't believe in the magic trip down the birth canal. But that doesn't mean that I endorse hanging every woman who had an abortion either. The truth is neither does Williamson. He is just a jackass who likes to troll people.

  • Macy's Window||

    John: "They also were dumb enough to think that they could hide how offensive he had been by deleting his Twitter account. Williamson deleted his Twitter account as soon as he got the job."

    Whether you agree with him or not, Williamson is a smart guy and no one thinks that they can make all their Tweets go away by deleting their accounts. That would be really, really stupid and Williamson is not stupid.

    Williamson said that he was deleting his Twitter account because it wasn't a good use of his time. He is not the only one to make this decision.

    If you are going to criticize Williamson, be honest about your reasoning.

  • Sevo||

    John|5.8.18 @ 10:18AM|#
    "I am going to stand up for the Atlantic here. Why do they owe the world hiring a conservative any more than National Review or Breitbart owe the world hiring a liberal? Everyone knows that these publications are liberal. And since their readerships are liberal, it makes sense."

    Not only that, but they are more than welcome to pull the sort of hypocritical crap they pulled right here; there is and should be no law preventing that.
    And there is equally no law against me pointing out that they are just one more stinking pile of lefty hypocrisy.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    The bigger question is; when do we decide we've had enough of Marxism and actually use our sedition laws to destroy these socialist organizations? They have no right to commit sedition or treason.p, and any offshoot of Marxism is inherently seditious and treasonous.

    Basically it isn't about who the Atlantic hires, and more about whether they should be in business as Marxist advocates in the first place.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    No, that really shouldn't be the bigger question here.

  • Mr. Gus||

    When did Elias decide he despised the first amendment, anyway?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Elias genuinely worries me.

  • Mr. Gus||

    I know, right? Dude's been shifting more and more towards "kill everyone who disagrees with me."

  • Elias Fakaname||

    No, I'm not. I want to stop marxists from taking over. Don't be a useful idiot for them.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Elias genuinely worries me.

    Not me. Guys like that mutter inconsequentially and bitterly. It's largely harmless, providing entertainment to extremist goobers.

    If they become a problem, they get crushed.

    No worries.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Please Arty, try and crush me. Arrange a meeting and see how that works for you.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Chip, if you're worried about me and not the progressives, then I can't help you. But if you think bitching and hand wringing with some snark stops Marxist revolutionaries, then you are sadly deluded.

    Also, killing them is really their choice. If they go peacefully then violence becomes unnecessary. But if it's ever a choice between turning the US into Soviet Union 2.0 or fighting a civil war, I'll take the civil war.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Your betters -- the liberal-libertarian alliance -- have been shoving progress down the throats of the all-talk, fringe-dwelling likes of you for a half-century or more. It likely is going to get worse for right-wingers and their ugly aspirations.

    Abortion. Gay marriage (and gay-bashing in general). School prayer. Medicare. Voter suppression. The war on doobies. Creationism. Social Security. Abusive policing. Medicaid. School desegregation.

    Next up: Single-payer health care. Or maybe gun safety first.

    Consider yourself -- and the right-wing agenda of backwardness, intolerance, ignorance, and superstition -- crushed.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    We're really not. First, you are not my superior, or even close to being my equal. I have no rival. No man may be my equal. I have inside me blood of kings.

    Take me to the future of you all.

    More seriously, if libertarians and conservatives decided we ad enough of you, we could wipe you and yo,axis friends off the map tomorrow. We have almost all the guns, tactical training, martial skills, survival training, etc.. your kind are largely whiney urban pussies only up for a fight with an old lady if you outnumber her 6-1.

    It is only through our tolerance, and inherent goodness that you are allowed to exist.

    Feel free to thank us for this patience, and mercy that is pissed upon you by real Americans Arty. For progressives are truly insects among gods.

  • Paradigm||

    > Next up: Single-payer health care

    Laugh. You progressives might find a way to push some bastardized version of single payer through Congress if Leatherface becomes the speaker again, but you know it's going to allow boutique healthcare, which I'll gladly pay for because I have way more money than I "need." That's right, according to you people on the left, I'm "greedy," but I stopped caring about your name-calling years ago.

    I'll shell out the multiple thousands of dollars for each member of my family to have a doctor who will never take more than 1,000 patients. You'll be waiting months for chemo while I'm waltzing into my dedicated doc for a headache. And I'll stand over you and say, "I told you so" as you waste away in a cold, impersonal public hospital with those large depressing grey bricks in the walls.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Bigoted yahoos like you weren't fans of Medicare, public schools, Social Security, or food labeling laws, either.

    Your betters knew and did better.

  • Paradigm||

    All of those are either broke or failing. Clearly you weren't better than your average cocker spaniel.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    When did you decide the first amendment allows for treason and sedition? What do you think Marxism is? You understand that to have Marxism we don't have our constitutional republic, right? They're essentially trying to overthrow the constitution through incrementalism. The only reason they don't just take over outright is that they can't, or they would.

  • Nardz||

    Elias is right - Progressivism IS at war to impose neofeudalism and technoeugenics on the west - But relying on the govt to use sedition laws to fight back isn't going to work. The govt is part of the progressivism problem.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    It may have to move beyond that. I'm hoping we get a better AG that will start prosecuting all the progressive crooks out there.

  • Ed Grinberg||

    Elias:
    I think you're right that leftists are trying to overthrow the constitution through incrementalism. But I do not accept your solution of prosecuting them for being leftists. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    "The bigger question is;" why are you afraid of hearing competing points of view? The argument against Socialism is such an easy one to make, that one needn't revoke someone's freedom to rebut their claims.

    Your responses so far in this thread don't make you any better than the antifa scum shouting down competing opinions in our nation's colleges.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    You equate the militant desire of a progressive to enslave you to 'competing points of view'? Also, it's not 'hearing about it' that concern pros me. It's the implementation of their slaver policies that's the problem. Their agenda isn't theoretical. It's happening.

    If you equate my willingness to hit back against Marxist slavers to Antifa, ypyoure just like the shitbags who blame crime victims for engaging in self defense. You really need to think long and hard.

  • Azathoth!!||

    The problem, Leo, is that it's all just talk.

    Yes, we can talk about why socialism doesn't work. We can even prove it with pie charts and math.

    Hurray!

    We need to get them out of our schools, out of our media, out of our history books. They will not leave willingly--because, by teaching our children for nearly the last century that war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is bliss, we find ourselves awash in the worst kind of useful idiot--people like you, Leo, who know something is wrong but who think it is their lot to do naught but whine.

    People who will not fight.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Amd we might have to. The real test is if the rule of law is restored. If people like the Clintons and their friends remain immune to legal scrutiny even under an opposition administration, then government has failed and it will take outside force to restore the rule law.

    A good AG could do wonders about now.

  • Dick Puller, Attorney at Law||

    I agree. Treason needs to become a thing again. With appropriate penalties attached.

  • Marshal||

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Truer words have never been spoken Marshall.

  • ||

    Doesn't The Atlantic *technically* claim to be 'centrist'?

    It's technical though because, yes, given some of the pure junk they've published, it's definitely more woke-prog now.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Everything claims to be 'centrist'.

    The left does it because everyone hates them when they say what they actually want.

    The right and libertarians do it because they've been raised to believe that 'right-wing' means Hitler.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    In reality centrism tends to tolerate the worst of both sides.

  • khm001||

    "Why do they owe the world hiring a conservative any more than National Review or Breitbart owe the world hiring a liberal?"

    They don't. But if you're going to close your mind, don't hypocritically go on to pretend you're expanding your mind.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Socialist arguments, on the other hand, Levitz asserts, have yet to be debunked

    Sure. Except for by, you know, nearly two centuries of reality.

  • John||

    Maybe the guy who calls anyone who lives in the rust belt a morally indefensible opioid addict and says all women who have abortions should be charged with murder isn't exactly the best choice to persuade the supporters of socialism of the error of their ways. Just a thought.

  • MarkLastname||

    Keep lying, John, you're really good at it.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Socialist arguments, on the other hand, Levitz asserts, have yet to be debunked,

    Nearly 200 million dead in the 20th century is a thorough debunking of socialism.

    -jcr

  • John||

    That wasn't real socialism John. Things got out of hand. The wrong people were in charge. And something had to be done about the wreckers and saboteurs who were working to ensure its failure.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Don't forget about the filthy capitalists making profits that take away money from everyone.

  • Ariki||

    Whoa, double John.
    Mind blown.

    Dam filthy capitalists.

  • khm001||

    John,

    I can't figure out if you're a troll or if you truly believe what you're saying. Either way, it's hilarious. Keep it up.

  • LarryA||

    Yet another debate over whether "diversity" means readers should hear from authors promoting all the laws conservatives want to pass as well as all the laws liberals want to pass; and completely ignoring all the potential readers who want conservative and liberal laws to be gotten rid of.

  • Macy's Window||

    Diversity has to start somewhere.

    Some disagreement is better than monoculture.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    I'm sure others have already commented on this.

    Socialist arguments, on the other hand, Levitz asserts, have yet to be debunked

    USSR, China, Eastern Europe, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, a pile of South American and African and Asian experiments. That enough empirical debunking for ya?

  • Eidde||

    Don't forget the evolution of the "democratic" socialists - they've actually soft-pedaled their former emphasis on taking over the means of production. Professedly socialist parties have shifted their attention to taxing and regulating the private sector, not having the government run it directly.

    I had interpreted this as an admission that even those who used to be gung-ho for state-run industries had tacitly admitted the wrongness of their position.

    I may have been overly optimistic.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    That's when you can explain that they are no longer socialists. Watch them squirm.

    If they don't want government to control the means of production, then they are something else politically.

  • Eidde||

    That would have been my response, since I remember hearing socialists actually talk about nationalizing industries.

    But language if fluid, and if socialists just want to be the radical wing of the New Deal/Great Society crowd, well, I say deal with them in those terms. That agenda is also harmful to free enterprise.

    I would suggest, by the way, that in talking about the discrediting of socialism, we focus on both the totalitarian *and* "democratic" varieties.

    That's because the democratic socialists - the ones who *claim* that they'd be willing to subject themselves to periodic elections in which they run the risk of being thrown out of power peacefully - have a history of resisting the totalitarian varieties of socialism. Look at the Social Democrats vs. the national socialists, or the Western European socialists who joined the Cold War against the Marxist-Leninists.

    (It's more complex than that, of course - many "democratic" socialists have shown totalitarian sympathies, but let's keep things simple for the moment.)

    To say socialism (in it's taking-over-industry form) has been discredited, we have to look at the totalitarian *and* the democratic socialist record.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Words mean things. Don't let socialists change the meaning of socialism if it works fine and it does.

    ObamaCare is an example of the Government controlling the means of production. Government demands that all Americans (the people) buy insurance (means of production, in this case health risk management).

    The USA is a Constitutional Democratic Republic. Our system is not set up to be majority rules under typical democratic rule where a Democratic Socialist could exist unless nearly all the of USA would allow massive socialism. We do have social security, ObamaCare, and a few other socialist programs though.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    It will change to whatever the progressives want if the commentariat here have their way. Apparently the progressives are just harmless and befuddled and I'm the dangerous one for actually suggesting something be done to stop them.

    Some people ultimately won't fight for their principles, or ever help with the heavy lifting. Yet excoriate anyone who does. I guess that's the easy way out for them.

  • Microaggressor||

    They want to redistribute private property, which is the point of socialism. Having "workers own the means of production" was just a means to that end. That rigid definition of socialism doesn't apply to the way the word socialism is primarily used today, e.g. the Bern Victim crowd. That's why they refer to the Nordic model as socialism when clearly it doesn't fit that definition.
    In my opinion, any desire to infringe on private property should be considered a form of socialism.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland governments own or partly own some private businesses and have what we would call state businesses 100% owned and operated by state employees.

    You start getting into Communism when the state owns all property or you don't have property because of a state. Anarchism, of course, involves no property rights because there is no government.

  • Microaggressor||

    governments own or partly own some private businesses and have what we would call state businesses 100% owned and operated by state employees.

    Ditto with the United States. It's called a mixed economy.

    Anarchism, of course, involves no property rights because there is no government.

    This common belief among communists assumes that without government to uphold private property, there will be no private property. I shouldn't have to quote Bastiat to tell you that useful economic activity doesn't cease to happen the moment the government stops doing it.

  • BYODB||

    There is no arguing with an anarchist of any stripe, they're all functionally retarded.

  • Ariki||

    No, but the means of holding private property become quite different.

  • shawn_dude||

    Y'all need to figure out where you stand on this... either social democrats are "Socialist Marxist scum" or "they are no longer socialists." or something. It seems to turn on which way you can craft an empty school-yard taunt more than anything to do with facts.

    Social democrats aren't "socialists" because they don't believe in government ownership of the means of production. Social democrats believe some socialists principles can be used to dull the excesses of capitalism such that capitalism doesn't result in a corporate-feudal state where the rich own it all and the poor are effectively slave labor. You know...the direction things are currently going.

  • Sevo||

    shawn_dude|5.9.18 @ 4:01PM|#
    "Social democrats aren't "socialists" because they don't believe in government ownership of the means of production. Social democrats believe some socialists principles can be used to dull the excesses of capitalism such that capitalism doesn't result in a corporate-feudal state where the rich own it all and the poor are effectively slave labor. You know...the direction things are currently going."

    You know...the way slavers claim they are going.
    Fuck off, slaver.

  • ||

    Exactly. Socialism/communism by other means.

    Look at Seattle through the head tax. That's how they get to dictate things.

    And idiots fucking swallow that shit up and love Sanders.

  • Rev. Arthur Ꮮ. Kirkland||

    After it was proved that Marx was full of shit, his theories about how history would progress disproven by events, a number of socialists sat down and worked out their own "third" alternative to capitalism and socialism where private ownership would be allowed but directed for socially-productive ends by the state.

    The leader of those socialists was Benito Mussolini.

    Over the next hundred years there have been several repetitions of socialism being discredited, socialists re-inventing fascist economics as the replacement for socialism, and then enough time passing for a new generation without experience to take up the banner of own-the-means-of-production socialism again.

    The clingers just keep carrying on.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Another contribution from Bigoted Authoritarian Mini-Me, whose only libertarian thought is that he thinks he should get to be me.

    Carry on, bigot.

  • Paradigm||

    Bogus bigotry accusations are the last refuge of an arrested development sufferer.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "They were not True Socialism!"

  • mtrueman||

    "USSR, China, Eastern Europe, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, a pile of South American and African and Asian experiments."

    When did you last read the Communist manifesto? None of these places are mentioned. Marx instead wrote of the importance of public roads and infrastructure, topics which are very close to the hearts of the Libertarians and Trumpsters who frequent the board, who argue for more spending.

  • mtrueman||

    "Bicycle paths? I want the money to be spent on proper roads instead!"

  • Elias Fakaname||

    My city has spent tens of millions of dollars on bike paths no one uses, or wants to use (including me, I'm a cyclist), and is about to spend millions more. All because five of our seven city councilmen are now progtards.

  • mtrueman||

    You'd prefer the money be spent on roads, and Marx (who was no cyclist) would agree.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    I'm sure he wasn't, as there were no bicycles at that time.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    I'm becoming more and more convinced what I've read in the comments elsewhere are totally right; Reason is a stepping stone writing job so nobody working here wants to be an actual libertarian. Too career limiting.

  • shawn_dude||

    +1

    The idea that a private media company can't hire and fire whomever they please is a crazy article to find on a libertarian news and opinion site.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Op-ed conservatives have mostly lost influence in the Trump era, because so many of them joined the NeverTrump movement, exposing themselves as just establishment mouthpieces.

    The ugly thing about the Williamson incident at the Atlantic wasn't their not having him on the staff. It was their hiring him away from a secure job, and then almost immediately firing him for being what they'd allegedly hired him for.

    The Atlantic has every right to be an ideological monoculture forever marching further into the fever swamps of the left. But hiring somebody away from a good job, and then immediately firing them for being what you'd hired them to be is just rotten morality, no matter what your ideology.

  • John||

    The upside of that is that Williamson has all kinds of sage advice for people in his position that he can follow. He can just load up all of his stuff in a U-Haul and move to a place he has never been and take up a new career for which he has no training. Williamson assures us that doing this is so easy only a morally indefensible degenerate could fail to do so. So, I am sure he will be fine.

  • Alcibiades||

    Ok, ok John we get it.

    You really, really don't like KW.

  • John||

    I am just giving the advice Williamson offers.

  • Alcibiades||

    Seriously, you should check out KD's "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism".
    Gives this lethal ideology the treatment it deserves.

  • John||

    Not everything he writes is terrible. But, it is not like taking down socialism is particularly hard or hasn't been done a million times. The problem with Williamson is that he is a total jerk and likely a phony. To give just one example of many, his one and only piece for the Atlantic was a fairly vicious attack on National Review, the publication that gave him a platform, and Victor Davis Hanson. He so mischaracterized what Hanson said, Hanson wrote a rebuttal to it explaining how badly Williamson misstated his views. Whatever you think of Hanson's writing, he seems to be one of the nicest most genuine people in the media. The guy is a farmer and classics professor and about as soft-spoken and straightforward as they come. Yet, Williamson not only goes after him but lies about him in the process.

    Williamson is just a lousy person. The world is better for him not having a platform. We can get someone else to make the case against socialism. It is not that hard.

  • Alcibiades||

    I read it and wondered too about where all that came from.

    Is anyone else having problems with the ad that loads to the RH part of the Reason webpage?
    Everytime the ad changes it forces my location on the website to jump to the top the site.

  • Mr. Gus||

    I use Brave, so I wouldn't know.

  • Alcibiades||

    I used to subscribe to The Atlantic, it's published some great writing and journalism.

    However its motto "Of no party or clique" is a joke now.

    May once have been true but for sure not any longer.

    Currently its start writer is nothing more than another "Al Sharpton", just with a bigger vocabularly.

  • MarkLastname||

    Coates is far worse than Al Sharpton

  • John||

    If Welch is so concerned about diversity and people overcoming their bias, why doesn't reason hire a Pro Trump staffer? Or maybe a staffer who isn't totally pro-open borders or thinks gay marriage is just an expansion of the state and not of freedom?

    The Atlantic is supposed to hire some clown who alienates its entire staff and most of its readership but reason is under no obligation to publish any version of Libertarian thought other than the open borders, leftist culture war forever version that it does. Reason is, of course, free to do that. It would just be nice if Welch would give the Atlantic the same privilege.

  • Alcibiades||

    Reason's masthead is "Free Minds, Free Markets.
    It's explicitly a libertarian publication.

    The Atlantic's masthead is "Of no party or clique".
    Clearly that's BS.

  • John||

    Sure reason is an explicitly Libertarian publication. But there are varieties of Libertarian thought that reason simply will not entertain. While I do not think reason is obligated to hire a socialist, I think it is fair to ask them why they refuse to hire writers who adhere to other strains of libertarian thought. Worse still, to the extent that reason writers ever stray from the reservation, it is always to the left. Reason staff is reliably libertarian and whenever they are not, they are always leftist. No one is a perfect anything. So some variation is inevitable. But with reason the variation only goes one way. No staffer has ever abandoned the libertarian view for the right-wing view.

  • Alcibiades||

    I get what you're saying and to some extent think it's true what you say. On culture war issues many times they seem reflexively take the left's side and assume there is no other position or point of view.

    Still, Reason has some great writers.

  • John||

    My point is that I don't see how Reason has any standing to criticize the Atlantic here. They are just as dogmatic as the Atlantic. I am sure the Atlantic has some great writers too at least according to their readers.

  • Alcibiades||

    They did ay one time, I parted company a while back.

    They're clearly ideologically bound now to the left with their star writer a more eloquent race-baiting version of Al Sharpton who writes the same sordid, greivance mongering claptrap again and again.

  • John||

    I don't like them either. I think them employing Andrew Sullivan to spend his time speculating about Sarah Palin's vagina for several years pretty much ended their run as a serious publication.

  • Tony||

    Maybe you're just stupid and wrong, John.

  • John||

    That is telling me Tony. You always bring the subtle and informed argument.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    The proper response to a juvenile post like that is, "I know you are but what am I?"

  • jcw||

    This is my favorite line by John. God, self-awareness is a bitch.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Tony, John is usually correct. YOU are stupid and wrong. You're also a craven cowardly, lying, palsied buggerer of schoolboys and a chickenhawk.

  • Tony||

    John never types anything without lying. Once enough people catch him lying he runs away to another thread. He's a big fat liar.

  • ace_m82||

    You didn't answer his charge that you lie...

  • Elias Fakaname||

    What lies? He's usually spot on or at least close. Tony, you're the one who lies all the time. You're constantly called on it, and then you disappear. You have zero integrity.

    I'm fact, why don't we start a thread listing some of the highlights of Tony's recent lies?

  • shawn_dude||

    "No staffer has ever abandoned the libertarian view for the right-wing view."

    I guess that would depend on how someone came to be libertarian in the first place. Both the Left and the Right have their favored areas where they'd restrict freedom. The Right tends to restrict more on morality--deeply personal choices--than the Left. The Left tends to restrict in more collectivist sorts of ways like restricting assault rifle ownership or regulating business practices seen as predatory. A writer who comes to libertarian from a perspective of social or personal liberty would more likely shift to the Left than the right.

    My path out of libertarianism could only go leftward.

  • Sevo||

    "My path out of libertarianism could only go leftward."

    From what you've posted here, you were never anything other than lefty scum.
    Please let the door hit your ass on the way out.
    Fuck off, slaver.

  • Macy's Window||

    shawn_dude: "The Right tends to restrict more on morality--deeply personal choices--than the Left."

    You mean like what light bulbs to buy, or how much soda to drink, or what kind of car to buy, or whether one can defend oneself, or whom to associate with, or whether one can actually practice one's religion, or whether government should force private individuals to discriminate on the basis of race or sex?

    Oh wait, those are all Lefty intrusions on liberty. I guess I don't understand you.

  • Macy's Window||

    shawn_dude: "The Right tends to restrict more on morality--deeply personal choices--than the Left."

    You mean like what light bulbs to buy, or how much soda to drink, or what kind of car to buy, or whether one can defend oneself, or whom to associate with, or whether one can actually practice one's religion, or whether government should force private individuals to discriminate on the basis of race or sex?

    Oh wait, those are all Lefty intrusions on liberty. I guess I don't understand you.

  • Just Say'n||

    Why is everyone talking about Welch? Soave wrote this piece and I hardly believe that "newly woke" Matt Welch would hold the opinion that Soave is presenting here. Old Matt Welch probably would.

  • Just Say'n||

    www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/opi.....k-web.html

    Also, who would have guessed that the New York Times opinion section would have a more nuanced take on Jordan Peterson than Welch?

  • netizen||

    That's Bari Weiss. Liberal enough to get a job at the NYT, but open-minded enough that she probably won't last there.

  • Just Say'n||

    It is somewhat depressing, though, that she is more open-minded than Welch

  • John||

    My mistake.

  • Tony||

    Try not being a dying philosophy still trying to justify institutional racism and, you know, murdering women who get abortions. I swear to god the incessant call for affirmative action by conservatives--it could be ironic if it could manage to reach beyond being sad.

  • John||

    Not every Muslim believes that stuff Tony. Stop being so Islamophobic. And Williamson isn't a Muslim anyway.

  • Tony||

    See? All you morons care about is getting a dig in at some minority group or other. It's always been the heart of conservatism. Now it's all you have left. And you whine about how you're not invited to the cool parties. Maybe you should just curl up and die, politically speaking.

    People whining about lacking access to the marketplace of ideas in a world with the internet and in a country with unrestricted access to it--maybe your ideas just suck. Ever consider that?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The truth is a dig to lefties like Tony.

    His socialist ideology gets dinged and he foams at the mouth while spouting insults.

    Its fun to watch since people really just consider him a mental patient.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    The sad thing is that where Tony lives they probably all agree with him.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Doesn't he live in Oklahoma City?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Seriously? I thought he lived in CA. He certainly acts like a CA progtard.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Tony's another hicklib like Arthur L. and shriek.

  • John||

    You are the one going after Muslims Tony, not me. I am defending them and telling you to stop.

  • Tony||

    You're a bigot and not even funny. Does anyone like you?

  • Homple||

    I like John. He livens the comment streams.

  • Just Say'n||

    The irony of the guy defending socialism calling other people bigots. That's a special kind of ignorant

  • John||

    You are the worst bigot on here Tony. And then when you are called on it, you claim everyone else is. If you think saying that about Muslims is so bigoted, why do you think saying it about all conservatives is any less? You are the nastiest bigot I have ever met in my life. You just don't think you are because your head is so far up your ass you think that being bigoted and hateful against the right groups is okay and not really bigotry.

    You are just an ignorant and awful person who uses politics as a rationalization for your bigotry and hatred. In other words, you are a leftist.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Sadly, there are now millions like him, and they vote.

  • Ariki||

    John.
    /Slow clap

  • John||

    People whining about lacking access to the marketplace of ideas in a world with the internet and in a country with unrestricted access to it--maybe your ideas just suck. Ever consider that?

    Last I looked Tony, the Republicans controlled all three branches of government and a large majority of state governments. Maybe your ideas suck? They don't seem to win many elections.

  • Tony||

    So what are you bitching about.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    They are putting you in your place, since you lie your ass off here.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Tony, you're getting slapped down. Fucking pederast.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Tony, Muslims are minority? Not in the Middle East they're not. Or many, many other countries where they murder buggering buffoons like you.

    You really are a mindless Marxist moron.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Note: this is the part where Tony runs away.

  • MAGA my NAGGA||

    "All you morons care about is getting a dig in at some minority group or other"
    "
    Try not being a dying philosophy still trying to justify institutional racism and, you know, murdering women who get abortions."

    One post to forget that he started the thread doing what he's bitching about.

    One post is all it took.

  • Just Say'n||

    "justify institutional racism and, you know, murdering women"

    Wait, now even Trust Fund is criticizing socialism?

  • Mark22||

    Who cares about the mainstream media or who they hire? They are history.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Reason cares because some of the Reason staff want to work at those dying lefty organizations.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    I suspect most of the staff writers here care far more about getting a plumb job at one of those lefty subversive rags than they do their libertarian principles, if they ever really had any in the first place.

  • Eidde||

    I'll go out on a limb and accept John's analysis of Williamson's work.

    Williamson seems to enjoy bashing other conservatives. So it would be unfair if his "execute women who had abortions" shtick were taken as conservative belief.

    The stuff about executing women who have abortions is generally a concern-trolling "gotcha" by pro-abortionists who think *nobody* should be punished for doing abortions.

    I can imagine a scenario in a couple generations, after abortion has not only become illegal but socially condemned in the same sense white supremacy is today, in which people debate punishing women who hire abortionists. But we're not nearly in that place yet - in fact, we're still struggling with the idea of unborn human beings as being worthy of any legal protection at all. In today context, then, just about every mainstream prolifer focuses on punishing the abortionist, not the woman who hires him - the object is to protect babies, and if that means prolifers have to endure concern-trolling, so be it.

  • John||

    Murder is a specific intent crime. If I mistakenly think you are dead and bury you alive causing your death, I am not guilty of murder. I might be guilty of manslaughter depending on the circumstances but I am not guilty of murder because I lack the specific intent.

    Women who have abortions are similar. They honestly believe that a fetus is not a person. They are wrong about that just like I am wrong in the example above. That mistake means they are not guilty of murder. They don't have the requisite intent.

    Williamson's statement was ignorant and thoughtless and accomplished nothing except to confirm the worst charges made against the pro life movement.

  • Eidde||

    Philosophically, I'm not fully content with that defense - after all, if we go Godwin, did the national socialists regard the Jews as fully human? Could they have been able to get out of trouble by denying they saw their victims as human?

    But practically, I'm not going to go against the virtually-unanimous consensus of the prolife movement - I'm going to assume they know what works in protecting the unborn, and what doesn't work - and obviously they've decided that if there's an abortionist to prosecute, there's no need to go after the woman.

  • John||

    did the national socialists regard the Jews as fully human?

    No they didn't. But thinking a fetus is not fully human is a much more reasonable mistake than thinking an entire race of people man, woman, and child alike is not fully human. Again, you don't have to agree with it you just have to see it as reasonable.

  • Eidde||

    ...a philosophical concession I'm not ready to make, since such a defense would be available to the abortionist.

    And the usual response to someone who is so out of it as to believe he's not killing a human being is to let that person put up an insanity defense.

  • Eidde||

    Thus, if someone genuinely believes that his victim is a Terminator-style robot, then let him plead insanity - he'll still have to go to an institution, but the institution will be a hospital instead of a prison.

  • John||

    They believe a horrible lie. It is what it is. They lack the requisite intent for murder. The solution to my burying you alive thinking you were dead is not to hang me. But to figure out why I thought that and make sure others don't make the same mistake.

  • Eidde||

    OK, but we have to call in the aid of the Reasonable Person.

    If someone isn't moving, has no pulse, and he's pronounced dead by the authorities, I suppose I can bury that person without guilt, even if it turns out by some miracle he's alive.

    But if he's struggling and saying "I'm not dead," and I bury him anyway, and I assume that his protests are simply post-mortem muscle spasms, then at best I'm insane and should be sent off for treatment.

    Look at the way people describe the unborn outside of the context of debating abortion - they use very humanizing language - at some level, normal people know it's a living human being in there.

  • Eidde||

    That's why you see reliably "pro abortion rights" people use phrases like "eating for two," or get indignant if a pregnant woman smokes, etc.

  • John||

    You are arguing that anyone who disagrees with you about when life begins is insane. Maybe you are right. Even if you are, you are not going to persuade anyone saying that. The problem with abortion is that admitting you are wrong is to admit that you have supported murder. And people are understandably very unwilling to do that. So, you have to be very careful about how you persuade them. Calling them insane just makes it harder.

  • Eidde||

    Specifically, I'm saying that anyone who's charged with killing the unborn, who makes the "I didn't think it was human" defense, should *at best* be able to be adjudged insane, if that's the defense they want to make.

    There's a difference between thoughts/speech and overt acts. Simply *talking* about how the unborn aren't human, or even that the already-born aren't human until they're valued, etc., is simply the exercise of protected First Amendment rights.

    I'm not for Soviet-style psychiatry, putting people away for beliefs.

    But if their beliefs lead them to kill, then they shouldn't be able to walk away scot-free based on their political beliefs - that would be discriminatory.

  • Eidde||

    And I probably already give offense by saying that abortionists should be prosecuted as criminals. Simply to suggest they should be allowed to exercise their right to an insanity plea doesn't make my position any worse from the "abortion rights" point of view.

  • Eidde||

    (and just because a defendant pleads insane doesn't mean he'll win, the jury may reject his insanity defense)

  • Libertymike||

    Query: Does a prevailing political culture necessarily negate specific intent to murder? Should a prevailing political culture negate specific intent to murder?

  • Eidde||

    That's why I ventured into Godwin territory, which usually I'm cautious about.

    And to be clear, while I contend that the defendant should be able to plead insanity, it would be up to a jury to decide if the insanity plea is actually valid. Anyone can call themselves insane when they get in trouble, the jury (at least ideally) should sort out the legitimate from the bogus claims.

  • Libertymike||

    There is no doubt that there is an intersection between the prevailing political culture and specific intent to murder.

    There is nothing inherently wrong with venturing into Godwin territory and there is nothing wrong with your venturing into it with regard to murder one.

    Granted, there is a difference between post-natal human beings, many of whom were elderly men and women, and pre-natal human beings. On the other hand, a human being is a human being, even if the human being is still in the womb.

    True, in the short run, it may not be effective to call baby-killers baby-killers, but, in the long run, I am becoming more convinced by the day that an appeal to reason will not carry the day with those afflicted with second, third, and fourth wave legal feminist agitprop, as well as garden variety socialists.

    Ultimately, if one, with premeditation, aborts a human being, has one not demonstrated that one has formed a specific intent to murder?

    Ultimately, if one, with premeditation, aborts a human being, why should one be entitled to a defense of prevailing political culture?

  • Fancylad||

    You don't get it Libertymike.
    The Birth-Canal Fairy only provides personhood on those who pass through its magic halls. She's what makes someone a human being. One minute they're not human, a minute later they are. Who are you to question our mystical and holy pro-choice beliefs.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    I have a cousin who is over fifty and a practicing attorney who believes that nonsense. If a woman were past her due date and decided to kill the fully hesitated baby, in her imd that would be a perfectly acceptable alternative to inducing labor, or a C section.

    Progressives are soulless murderers.

  • Mark22||

    Philosophically, I'm not fully content with that defense - after all, if we go Godwin, did the national socialists regard the Jews as fully human? Could they have been able to get out of trouble by denying they saw their victims as human?

    You're falling prey to John's semantic games with terms like "person" and "human".

    The Nazis recognized Jews as persons: they recognized that Jews had agency, self-awareness, and free will. That was, after all, the basis of Nazi accusations against the Jews. Therefore, it is clear that Nazis were killing persons. The Nazis justified those killings as self-defense, but that is not a reasonable belief on their part, hence the killings were wrong and illegal.

    Nazis also believed that Jews were genetically inferior, a biologically separate category, but it is personhood (agency, self-awareness, free will), not genetic relatedness, that should matter when it comes to rights.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    Can I believe the same thing about progressives? they obviously have no self awareness or rational cognitive functions.

  • Mark22||

    Women who have abortions are similar. They honestly believe that a fetus is not a person. They are wrong about that just like I am wrong in the example above.

    This is the same sort of semantic games that progressives try to win debates with: "Fetuses are persons, killing persons is illegal, therefore abortion should be illegal". You're not going to convince people with that kind of simplistic syllogism because each part of it falls apart under closer scrutiny.

    Arguments for and against abortions need to be made based on substance, not on terminology or simply syllogisms. And they need to be made carefully, distinguishing sin, mortal sin, and legal culpability. Traditional Catholicism made a distinction between early and late abortion, considering all sinful, but only considering the latter murder.

  • Priscilla King||

    A person is alive. A fetus is not alive--at least not when it's out where you can see it. No matter how much you love it and fuss over it and try to make it live, a visible fetus is a wad of dying tissue.

    I'd like to have the power to sentence anyone who types things like "A fetus is a person" to *try* to bring a fetus to life, at least an animal one, so they'd absorb the reality.

    More guys should only be concerned about making sure unwanted fetuses don't form...but confusing a fetus with a person is not the way that's done. It's like saying "Don't smoke because all cigarette companies belong to Jesse Helms."

  • Mark22||

    I can imagine a scenario in a couple generations, after abortion has not only become illegal but socially condemned in the same sense white supremacy is today,

    Where things are going to settle down is that abortion will remain legal (but discouraged) in the first trimester and be outlawed afterwards. That's consistent with traditional Christian views, it's consistent with science, and it's what conservative societies typically settle on.

  • DajjaI||

    the further left that the opinion pages move, the easier it is for Trump to rally his base

    No actually, it's a good thing. Because socialism is on the rise, and it's a greater danger than Trump, and this will make its demise all the more resounding. Reason - stay the course, and slow and steady wins the race.

  • Alcibiades||

    "Take the most fundamental question dividing left-liberals from socialists: Should the means of production be socialized? Many on the center-left regard this as a dead debate—one that Joseph Stalin settled decisively long ago.

    But the events of recent decades have lent some credence to the socialists' case..."

    Probably the funniest - yet profoundly depressing - thing I'll read this year.

  • John||

    Notice the disasters that have befallen Zimbabwe and Venezuela somehow do not count as recent events.

  • shawn_dude||

    John, I think you aren't understanding what this is referring to. Venezuela is a classic example of why socialism doesn't work. But Marx had some interesting ideas about how capitalism would end up killing itself. So, in this case the "credence to the socialists' case" is referring to how American style capitalism is getting out of control and starting to cause harm to itself.

    Intelligent people may disagree here, but I don't think citing Venezuela is relevant to the quote above. More relevant would be things like employers using laws and other methods to capture enough power in the job market such that very low unemployment isn't resulting in rising wages. Free market theory says a shortage in good employees will result in rising wages and yet that isn't happening. Wage increases are barely keeping up with inflation while the unemployment rate falls.

  • Sevo||

    "More relevant would be things like employers using laws and other methods to capture enough power in the job market such that very low unemployment isn't resulting in rising wages."

    If you check around, it's easy to find DIY instructions in making tin-foil hats.
    According to this, real wages are rising at nearly 4.5%/annum:
    https://tradingeconomics.com/
    united-states/wage-growth
    And outstripping most other nations.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    "[E]vents of recent decades" = people have finally started paying attention to Bernie Sanders, for some reason.

  • Microaggressor||

    By "events" of recent decades, they mean rhetoric, not actual things that happened to actual innocent people in socialist countries.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Obviously.

  • JuanQPublic||

    The problem isn't lack of ideological diversity, it's ideology.

    That is why there is a growing intellectual movement that realizes that ideological argumentation is fundamentally disingenuous, and obsolete. Its obsolescence has never been more apparent than in 2018, as American society loses the capacity to reason with itself.

    So, the dilemma of filling "ideological quotas" at various media establishments is behind the current curve coming up. Expect the unexpected in future alliances, debates and general discussions, because the current template that legacy media seems to be embracing has a short shelf life. It's the same reason that headlines have become more extreme, and pundits becoming more crude. Legacy media is dying.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    The problem is entirely n the left. The right, libertarians, etc. are all TOO reasonable. The left cosmtamtly demands more, destroying and demonizing anything in their way.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    The socialist critique of capitalism is true: it sometimes does encourage the exploitation of those who provide the most basic labor inputs.

    The capitalist critique of socialism is also true: it doesn't fucking work.

  • shawn_dude||

    Socialism fails because it assumes people will not act in their own interests first.
    Capitalism fails because it assumes people will always act rationally in their own interests.

    Socialism leads to starving citizens because there's no incentive to work or innovate.
    Capitalism leads to starving citizens because it skews wealth to the rich, who get richer, and exploits the poor who get poorer.

    The societies that have done the best are those that blend the two.

  • Sevo||

    shawn_dude|5.9.18 @ 4:27PM|#
    "Socialism fails because it assumes people will not act in their own interests first.
    Capitalism fails because it assumes people will always act rationally in their own interests."
    shawn-dude fails because shawn-dude isn't real sharmt, shawn-dude.
    People *always* act rationally in their self interest. Dim-bulb observers who claim otherwise are, well, full of shit; *they* presume to know what is in the self interest of the actors.
    Let's be clear: Fuck off, slaver.

    "Socialism leads to starving citizens because there's no incentive to work or innovate.
    Capitalism leads to starving citizens because it skews wealth to the rich, who get richer, and exploits the poor who get poorer."
    Shawn-dude lets the mask slip and shows he is nothing other than a slaver.
    No one who chooses an action is "exploited", you fucking imbecile.

    "The societies that have done the best are those that blend the two.
    Fuck off, slaver.

  • Eidde||

    In the current technological era, when magazines can often just link to articles they disagree with, in order to rebut them, the need to have a bunch of ideologically-different writers under one organizational roof isn't as great as it may once have been.

    OTOH, if the editorial staff of a magazine are of diverse beliefs, they would hopefully sharpen each others' wits and learn how to deal with the arguments the other side is *actually* making, rather than dealing with "straw man" arguments.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    That would require a basic understanding of the unfashionable art of rhetoric. Rhetoric was considered an important component of education until a century ago, when Progressive advocates of compulsory schooling removed so as not to burden students with the ability to effectively argue against the roles government, industry, and religion had decreed for them.

  • Eidde||

    LOL you're such a Hitler.

  • shawn_dude||

    Rhetoric is one of those liberal educational subjects that conservatives would cut in order to reduce the expense of running public universities. Rhetoric is usually taught in philosophy departments. You can't get much more liberal than that.

    Scan through a bunch of Reason articles and I'm sure you'll find several that talk about eliminating courses at public universities that don't teach a marketable skill or forcing students to pay full price for "non-productive" liberal arts education.

    Maybe you think anything bad in the world must be the cause of some liberal belief and haven't really considered it much beyond where to assign blame. If true, I'd expect you haven't actually taken a rhetoric course.

  • Sevo||

    "Scan through a bunch of Reason articles and I'm sure you'll find several that talk about eliminating courses at public universities that don't teach a marketable skill or forcing students to pay full price for "non-productive" liberal arts education."

    Why don't YOU scan through them and give us some links?

  • emkcams||

    The notion of the state controlling the means of production is inherently a lie to begin with. But it is subtle. The means of production boils down to you and I and our property as well as the indusrial infrastructure. Every socialist state that has existed controls the individual. Some control the individual more than others but they all reserve the right to control them completely.

  • Sean Higgins||

    "Socialist arguments, on the other hand, Levitz asserts, have yet to be debunked."

    An entire century's worth of history notwithstanding...

  • Microaggressor||

    I'm curious if there's an upper limit to the pile of corpses that it would take to debunk socialism in the minds of the True Believer. I'm inclined to guess there isn't one.

  • Mr. Gus||

    There is. The limit is one.

    The catch is that the corpse must belong to the True Believer.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    "I'm curious if there's an upper limit to the pile of corpses that it would take to debunk..."

    You could make this same claim for nearly every major religion throughout history.

  • BYODB||

    Of course, 'history' is roughly 2000-4000 years of collected information whereas socialism is only about a hundred years of history yet it has managed to kill more people than anyone in the prior few thousand years in a comparatively short period of time. Not even through overt murders, either, but through things like simple starvation.

    Maybe if the Aztec had managed to become a modern civilization that still practiced human sacrifice, they might have managed to get close to the socialists.

  • ThomasD||

    "Coates was essentially saying that the publication could still have intellectual diversity without conservative opinions, as long as it shifted the goalpost in the other direction—i.e., by including more perspectives that were further and further left."

    Why, it's almost as if there is some sort of codified formal plan for this sort of behavior. But wherever could that come from? And shouldn't the writers at Reason be aware of it, if it truly did exist?

  • TGoodchild||

    "Widening the range of permissible views on the left while banishing conventional, widely held conservative opinions hardly seems like an antidote for the polarization afflicting American discourse."

    Who said anything about depolarization? So long as the Left artificially maintains is democratic presence with subjugating minorities and immigrants, the "thought leaders" can keep their bubble inflated.

  • DajjaI||

    The key to understanding socialism is to realize that while they are each trying to outdo each other in professing love and compassion for the working class, they are each at the same time nurturing a secret fantasy to take over the world, and each one preposterously believes that they are the only ones who ever thought of it. The resulting dynamic is the 'rise & purge' as successive waves of increasingly elaborate world domination fantasies liquidate the previous ones. In the past this happened way too late - e.g. under Stalin, where socialism had already taken hold of the society. But now, it's happening pre-emptively. For example, the Women's March is fracturing under competing claims of true compassion for the people. As for the democratic party, they have no plausible leader. This is a good thing and as libertarians we should encourage it. The best way to combat socialism is to expose it and let it cannibalize itself as it always does.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Unless people are willing to do something about the progs, then we are doomed. Most people here would rather be enslaved then hit back. Some of us value our freedom. Far more than the lives of the would-be slavers. I get attacked here for that.

  • BYODB||

    Buddy, I don't know if you've read anything at all about Republics or Democracies but they invariably fall into authoritarianism so the idea we can 'stop' that gradual descent isn't rooted in reality. You can slow it down, or speed it up, but those are basically your two options outside of a Convention of the States (which I suppose counts as a 'reset' button).

    Your apparent willingness to visit death and destruction onto your countrymen isn't a great look, though.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Is called self defense. If someone means kill. Or enslave me, I have every to stop them. By any means necessary. Y fess is you just don't to admit things are getting bad enough that you might have to spill some blood, or bleed a,title yourself, to preserve your freedoms.

    But I'm sure you would have thought that 'visiting death and destruction upon your countrymen' woulspdmt have been a good look back during the revolutionary war either.

    You can't fight for your freedoms with snarky comments.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Elias yapping about going "the full LaVoy" to vindicate his bigoted, stale right-wingery amuses me.

    The thing that might make Elias snap, though, would be a recognition that American society is never going to go back to compelling black men to lower their gaze in the company of white women.

    Carry on, clingers.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Elias yapping about going "the full LaVoy" to vindicate his bigoted, stale right-wingery amuses me.

    What's more amusing is liberals claiming only the government should have firearms. If that's the case, bring on more Kent States.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I do not believe the government should have a monopoly with respect to firearms. I believe Americans are entitled to possess a reasonable firearm for self-defense in the home. That is because I am a libertarian. I am neither a gun absolutist nor a conservative, however. That is because I have a solid education and am not a stale-thinking bigot.

    Carry on, clingers.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Right on!

  • ThomasD||

    "The best way to combat socialism is to expose it and let it cannibalize itself as it always does."

    You mean like we let them pass things like the CRA, and all the other stuff leading up to the housing bubble bursting, only to be followed by TARP and all the other government bloat, waste, and expense?

    How much of a price did they, and their cronies actually pay for any of that?

    No thanks, They are termites that should be exposed and (ideologically, if not literally) exterminated.

  • DajjaI||

    "They are termites that should be exposed and (ideologically, if not literally) exterminated."

    Yikes. But yeah, thanks for proving my point. Proceed cannibalizing:

  • Microaggressor||

    Socialists will never own up to the failure of their preferred policies. All that happens is innocent people suffer.

  • BYODB||

    Ha ha, oh man that's hilarious.


    Sorry, but you won't find publications that are obviously in favor of socialism allowing any alternative opinions from anyone sane. The reason why? Socialists are always obsessed with purges. It's their thing, because their ethos literally requires them as most people aren't so excited to hand over their means of production or personal private property over to the state, and Socialists always need all your stuff. It's just how they operate.


    So the fact that this is surprising to Soave indicates that he's so far removed from sanity that he's confused why socialists would purge conservatives when, notably, 'conservatives' have a lot of stuff to take.


    Pay attention Robby, the ethos you're ok with publications publishing in favor of (and conceptually, I agree with you there.) is an ethos that by definition can not allow dissent. The very fact that you've got this guy admitting to shifting so far to the left that motherfucking Stalin is even debatable is telling. I'm sure it's same tierd, worn out bullshit socialists have been saying for almost a hundred years, in that 'if only it had been someone else, socialism totally would have worked that time.'

  • ||

    'Coates: Well, no, you open it up. You understand what I'm saying? Like, as I said before, I don't think 15 years ago or 20 years ago we would have ran "The Case For Reparations." So that means it's opened up in a different direction. I think if we publish kick-ass stories, very little of this will actually matter."

    What snivelling faux-intellectual rat this guy is.

    Does he qualify as one of those men who get by despite their mediocrity Michelle was yapping on about in her usual puerile way?

  • mtrueman||

    "What snivelling faux-intellectual rat this guy is."

    You might prefer the thought of Marxist Frantz Fanon. He doesn't get much attention these days, but mark well these words of wisdom: ''I have neither the right nor the duty to claim reparation for the domestication of my ancestors.''

  • BYODB||

    Of course, the word domestication implies a subhuman status to be put on the level of infants, animals, and pets. There are more accurate words that could have been used, but I suppose if one is a Marxist there's already something wrong with you. Not that I have any clue who the person you're referencing is.

  • mtrueman||

    "Not that I have any clue who the person you're referencing is."

    He was from Martinique and wrote in French. Have you heard of Algeria? It's a country and there were events there some time ago. Fanon took an interest in them. You might want to check out the original French if the word 'domestication' troubles you.

  • Sevo||

    "Not that I have any clue who the person you're referencing is."
    Nor does trueman regardless of his bullshit; Parade Magazine is is source for most all of the crap he posts.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Is he a Parade Magazone reading 34 year old virgin who is ineptly to tap a fat co worker named Fran?

  • mtrueman||

    "Is he a Parade Magazone reading 34 year old virgin who is ineptly to tap a fat co worker named Fran?"

    I give you a 7 out of 10 on your sevo aping. You've got incoherence and stupidity down pat, you need to concentrate on juvenile insults and bluster.

  • Sevo||

    "You've got incoherence and stupidity down pat,"
    Reading your pathetic attempts at comments is all the training anyone needs.

    "you need to concentrate on juvenile insults and bluster."
    Indeed; you deserve exactly that. I'm sure better insults would go right over your head.

  • mtrueman||

    No no, is is not not.

  • StackOfCoins||

    Christ, what an asshole.

  • Hank Phillips||

    I recall when Reason was a libertarian magazine gleefully commenting on the brawls and backstabbling, plus the lying and looting the looters accused each other of. Both the communists that assimilated the Dems and the ku-klux Prohibition party mystics controlling the Gee-Oh-Pee since 1928 are anti-libertarian and favor the initiation of force. Better them aggressing against each other than us. Robbie should be egging them on to fire cowardly girl bulliers, urine analyzers, queer baiters, nationalizers... in short, all the Comstock law christianofascists and their Stalinista pals occupying the same damn square of the Nolan diagram. What is with this butthurt hand-wringing over the Kilkenny cats?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    You should start a business where people can kick you in the nuts for a dollar a pop. Feel free to spout your nonsense while they're doing it. Should add motivation.

  • tommhan||

    The leftist have lost all perspective of what a fair press is all about. We want news and we want it reported but we do not want constant propaganda.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    What are you complaining about? No one is forcing you to read the New York Times or watch CNN.

    You have Breitbart, RedState, Sinclair, Fox, FreeRepublic, Stormfront, Newsmax, Gateway Pundit, Drudge, NRA TV and the other conservative providers.

    And you can send your children to Bob Jones, Grove City, Regent, Liberty, or another right-wing school. With my thanks and compliments, because my children and grandchildren will get to compete economically with the graduates of conservative-controlled schools.

    Carry on, clingers.

  • ||

    Wanna bet?

  • Sevo||

    "Carry on, clingers."

    Carry on, asshole.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Arty, with a little hard work, you and your seditious proggy offspring will all be on blacklists, just like back in the days of America's greatest hero Joe McCarthy. You will all be lucky tget Jobs eemptyie trash at my office.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Be nice, Elias, or I may instruct my children to refrain for hiring your children to mow the lawn, detail the vehicles, and clear the walkways. And then how would your family afford the handful of street pills or off-brand cigarettes needed to get through another deplorable day in your left-behind town?

    I am willing to help Trump supporters and other right-wing fringers address their self-inflicted problems, but my generosity has limits.

  • Sevo||

    Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|5.9.18 @ 9:24AM|#
    "Be nice, Elias, or I may instruct my children to refrain for hiring your children to mow the lawn,"

    I will not hold your imbecility against your kids They did not have any choice in being born of a fucking asshole.
    If they apply, they will get the same consideration as any applicant, regardless of their ancestry.
    Fuck off, shitbag.

  • Sevo||

    Oh, and:
    Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|5.9.18 @ 9:24AM|#
    "..but my generosity has limits."
    Your 'generosity' in providing no-pay jobs? Aren't you the fucking hypocrite?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Why so cranky, Sevo?

    Are you sentient enough to recognize that American progress has been crushing your authoritarian, right-wing preferences throughout your lifetime, and that this is likely to continue throughout the foreseeable future?

  • Roger Knights||

    Apart from the inconvenience and current constitutional barriers, why not let leftists have the equivalent of safe-space territories within the U.S.? I.e., why not set aside several collections of counties that are unbound by certain large swathes of national legislation and jurisprudence and let them show the rest of us a prototype of what they have in mind? To ensure that it is properly socialistic (or whatever term they favor), elections could be suspended for 15 (say) years until the foundations were properly set. Groups composed (not comprised!) of the editorial boards of publications like The Nation, the NY Times, etc. could legislate, judicicate, and "execute." That way everything will be politically correct, so they'll have no one to blame but themselves.

    However, if they do fail, there'll be a dozen external factors they'll put the blame on, I suspect. Well, revise and try again. Meantime, they'll lose traction in public opinion. It's preposterous and unjust to tell such seditious people to "love it or leave it." They need to have a space with their own language to repair to, and one that doesn't require a great distance to get to.

    And so do we. So does everyone. There are 3041 counties in the U.S. Ten 10-county collections that semi-seceded from the remaining 2041 would provide sufficient diversity in strands of dissenting political opinion to accommodate 80% of the politically discontented population.

  • Roger Knights||

    (continuation) They'd be happy to go, and the 2041 remaining would be happy to see them leave. It would be a big win/win. Justice would reign, and Peace. E Uno Plures would be our new national motto. (I hope I got that right.)

    If severe dissension arose within one of these dissenting county-blobs, the grousers could be given a county of their own to run, under the umbrella to some extent of the rest of their bunch.

    Democracy was a revolt against the rule of the (unrepresentative) few. At bottom, it was a revolt against bullying, aka oppression. But the revolt against bullying needs to take the next step and dethrone the rule of the majority, which (given the vast differences in what humans consider oppressive) must inherently oppress large segments onto their citizens.

    BTW, an unanticipated benefit would be a tremendous increase in revenue from tourism from abroad, coming here to gawk at the national zoo, and perhaps to learn something to take home with them.

  • Roger Knights||

    PS: penultimate paragraph, last words, change "onto their citizens" to "of their citizens"

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Socialist arguments, on the other hand, Levitz asserts, have yet to be debunked

    Technically true. Tens of millions of dead men tell no tales.

  • Ragini Gupta||

    My name is Ragini Gupta and I am Air Hostess from calling and autonomous escort specialist organization in Goa and I am 23 year old and prominent Family foundation with hot and beguiling and satisfying identity that you might want to take me to the quaint little inn adore with as long you wish to have in your life. Along these lines, if youare landed to the city for working together and thinking to have Hot Air Hostess Escorts , High profile Model, Female Escort, Call Gris and with all free escort specialist co-ops like Call Center, BPO, Hot House spouse's and all Private working Professionals in Goa.
    Visit My site :- http://www.modelsingoa.com

  • Priscilla King||

    Must widen as far on the Right as on the Left, yes.

    Personally I don't think a serious discussion needs either Williamson's quoted opinion or Stalin's.

    And Reason needs to reconsider the latest site NON-improvements. Something keeps tweaking the cursor out of the comment box even as I type. One of those flashy ad gadgets is sabotaging your site, Reason!

  • buybuydandavis||

    Who says they want to hoi polloi commenting?

  • buybuydandavis||

    The Liberal Media's Answer to Ideological Diversity Concerns: Ban Conservatives, Hire *More* Socialists

    FTFY

  • Trumptard||

    Williamson is far more libertarian than Robby.

  • Pat001||

    Editors addressed issue of diversity in their newsrooms by replacing their left-wing white male reporters with left-wing nonwhite and female reporters.

  • Hank Phillips||

    I joined the LP to help fire ALL socialists, national and international!

  • Deplorable Victor||

    Ta-Nehisi Coates, a filthy nigger vermin who proves the civil war was a mistake.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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