MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

A Libertarian Defense of the Red Hen's Right to Refuse Sarah Huckabee Sanders

"If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant...you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them."

SandersPAPPIS JEAN PIERRE POLARIS/SIPA/NewscomOn Friday, the owner of the Red Hen, a restaurant in rural Virginia, asked a customer—Sarah Huckabee Sanders—to leave. The Trump administration's press secretary then exited without complaint.

It's easy to imagine both left and right upping the ante with these performative acts of resistance, further polarizing society in ways that play right into Pres. Trump's hands. Even so, libertarians should defend a private property owner's right to eject a government official from the premises.

The incident became a national news story after a waiter wrote about it on Facebook, and Sanders confirmed it in a tweet. Since then, the conservative and liberal commentariat have been attacking and defending the restaurant owner, respectively. Reason's Elizabeth Nolan Brown included a useful overview of the controversy in this morning's Reason Roundup.

A summary: Conservatives say that booting Sanders was uncivil, and we should be able to interact with people whose politics we abhor. Taken to the logical extreme, conservatives say, the Red Hen's tactic would result in separate restaurants for conservatives and liberals, which can't possibly be healthy for democracy.

Leftists say that Trump is a fascist—the purposeful separation of immigrant families and mistreatment of children offers better evidence of this than anything we've seen previously from this administration—and Sanders is complicit in fascism. Trump is neither civil, nor likely to be moved by civility, so what's the point of playing nice?

Rep. Maxine Waters (D–Calif.), a frequent talking head on MSNBC and a leader of the #Resistance, made her position clear at a rally is Los Angeles on Sunday, where she said, "For these members of his cabinet who remain and try to defend him they're not going to be able to go to a restaurant, they're not going to be able to stop at a gas station, they're not going to be able to shop at a department store, the people are going to turn on them, they're going to protest, they're going to absolutely harass them…"

"If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them," she added.

Waters seems to be encouraging people to form angry mobs to harass Trump officials; if such a practice became normal, it could very well get out of hand quickly. Besides, Waters doesn't get to decide the rules of engagement in department stores, gas stations, and restaurants—the owners of those properties do. I bet a lot of them would prefer if people didn't harass other customers, regardless of whether those customers work for Trump.

But Sanders wasn't forced from the Red Hen by an angry mob—she was asked to leave by the property owner, who was exercising freedom of conscience. Just as libertarians wouldn't want a Christian cake baker to be forced to endorse a same-sex wedding by preparing a cake for it, we shouldn't force a restaurant owner to serve a government official involved in policies the owner believes are immoral.

The Red Hen's owner is free to deny service to Sanders, so too is everybody else free to criticize that decision. As cruel as it may seem for conservatives to destroy Red Hen's Yelp rating, recall that liberals played this game, too (remember Memories Pizza?).

I think escalation is a real concern, and if the left took Waters' advice, politicizing nearly every commercial decision, we could end up with an even more fractured society. Trump would exploit this fragmentation, happily informing his voters that liberals won't even let them go shopping or fill up their gas tanks without shrieking at them. Trump likes to capitalize on his base's fears; those fears seem more justified when the left peacefully censures and ostracizes prominent conservatives.

At the same time, Sanders not getting dinner is in no way, shape, or form as tragic as the Trump administration's immigration policy. Liberals have every reason to wonder why they need to show Trump officials civility when Trump's behavior is so appalling. Turning away Sanders is thus every restaurant owner's right.

Will doing so encourage the Trump administration to enact more humane immigration policies, or will it cause Trump to double down and produce a toxic blowback? I think more people should be honest about the fact that we don't really know for certain, which is another reason why the libertarian approach of letting people set the rules of engagement on their own property—at the Red Hen, and at Masterpiece Cake Shop—is the best policy.

Photo Credit: PAPPIS JEAN PIERRE POLARIS/SIPA/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • PeteRR||

    Progressives aren't going to like the world they are creating.

  • ||

    It's always amusing when they rail against Fascism since that's essentially what they advocate for (total state control of the economy, state suppression of objectionable points of view, state monopolization of education and personal defense, etc. etc.)

  • BYODB||

    It's only fascism if you're not the one who's in control of the apparatus. This is basically the modern definition.

  • juris imprudent||

    Feudalism doesn't suck for the nobility.

  • Malvolio||

    It does! They just don't realize it.

    Yes, if you are a duke, you probably think feudalism is great, because you're better-off than everybody you know.

    But you are much worse off than most people in a free market. You have slaveys to stoke the fire, but you don't have engineers to invent (much more comfortable) central hearing.

  • Kermudjin||

    It saddens me to see what has happened to the beautiful and historic small town I spent four years in as an undergrad four decades ago. I lived two blocks from this restaurant. Lexington has always prided itself on its traditions of southern hospitality, decorum and civil behavior. My Alma Mater, Washington and Lee, was the first college to have a student governed Honor System, that was instituted under the presidency of Robert E. Lee, and has flourished to this day. Now Lexington only makes national headlines due to the uncivil behavior of transplanted Yankees.

    The same is true of UVA, where I spent a summer on the campus with the Rotunda and quad designed by Thomas Jefferson, one of the central intellectual lights of our founding American principles. It achieved national notoriety last year due to the uncivil behavior of outsiders agitating in the historic grounds of Liberty.

    Our Clown in Chief and his hecklers have turned our public discourse into a shouting match with the potential for violent confrontations; the opposite of what our Founding Fathers envisioned when they enshrined our love of tolerance and the liberty to live by one's moral choices in our fundamental legal and social structure.

  • Nardz||

    Fascism and communism are both types of progressivism

  • Trainer||

    They are the same thing- violent oppression. We can get nit-picky and find an economic or ideological difference two but the truth is they are the same oppression dressed in different costumes.

  • Devastator||

    Both sides want facism. Republicans want a theocratic Autocrat to control people's lives but let them keep their guns, Democrats want a Socialist Nanny State. They both want government to control society in their own image.

  • Whorton||

    Your comment makes no sense, and here is why.

    You suggest that both sides want to control the people and their behavior. Yet, the Republicans also want people to possess firearms with which to defend themselves.

    While democrats ostensibly want to deprive everyone except government agents to possess firearms.

    It is not difficult to discern which side really wants to control citizenry. It is a shame you cannot see that.

  • ||

    Republicans favor limiting the types of guns / weapons we may posses. It would be very hard for the citizens of this country to fight against an army equipped with 50 caliber machine guns, planes, tanks, drones etc. Anyway you get the picture. Unless our armed forces or at least a portion of them are part of any revolt the chances of succeeding or slim.

  • a tandem||

    No. We know from history even a lightly armed citizenry is often a serious deterrence to tyranny, be it local, national or external. The chances of success are good, since it has already been successful. We know protest marches that included armed protesters in the south during the civil rights era were less likely to be attacked by police or local deep state (actors affiliated with police/local gov.t KKK and aligned provocateurs). See "Deacons of Defense" etc.

    Framing the issue as only a "revolt" and using other extremes, like fighting the entire US military is problematicl. By this argument the First, Fourth and fifth amendments are also never can deter tyranny or tyrannical impulse, since you can't throw your copy of the WPost at an incoming nuke to effect either, nor can your attorney assert habeas during martial law .

    The fact is as a general rule, it has been harder to impose tyranny or engage in tyrannical acts/policies by government when the government does not possess a monopoly on the instruments of violence. it is why the Nazis, when occupying any area, among their first order of business was to tack up notices telling everyone to turn in any and all firearms, including the most basic ones and making it a severe, often death penaly officence to even have a pistol or shotgun. They did so from the Channel Islands to Ukraine, from Greece to Norway. Within Nazi germany possession of firearms by political opponents was severely limited for this reason.
    ….

  • a tandem||

    (cont)…
    While the sometimes used "rifle behind every blade of grass" Tojo attributed quote is of doubtful precise provenance, that doesn't change the fact that it was likely a very serious consideration. Japan made possession of firearms a death penalty offense the Philippines, Korea and China. They were very worried even about the already small number of rusty bolt actions and shotguns. Before that for example in the Ottoman empire, from Bulgaria to Bagdad it was a core rule that Muslims alone could bear arms. They did not do so to reduce civil crime but did so specifically to maintain oppressive tyranny.

    As far as the US armed forces, we did not swear allegiance to the state or a party -- but to the US Constitution. To be sure much of the US military can't be excluded from abetting tyranny since it often slips in incrementally, and because all military forces rely on conditioning to follow orders generally. But the idea that no Americans in the military would resist tyranny is not supported. Does every E4 know and understand context of posse Comitatus inside out? Doubtful. Do most commission officers know and understand its reasons? Yes.

    The fact is the First, Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendments and the entirety of the Constitution work in concert to deter tyranny. To assert as a test of this combined effect whether any single aspect of the constitution and bill or rights deter all tyranny in all cases means you could shred all of them.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    They still think they're going to be in charge of the world they're creating.

  • Paulpemb||

    There's a reason the Soviets referred to Western lefties as 'useful idiots'.

  • Devastator||

    A term they often used for the autocratic tendencies of the Republican party as well.

  • a tandem||

    History and the fact say no. Provide a source for your claim.

  • Placeholder Name||

    Yeah, escalating the political violence doesn't make any sense when the other side owns all of the guns.

  • Whorton||

    It was a bit humorous reading commentary on other sites regarding the issue. At least one leftist offered that he ws a "Marksman" and another that he already had his list of "republicans" and he wouldn't use a firearm. Yet another commented "Bring it on, Trumpsters."

    The eternal stupidity of the grossly overconfident left never ceases to amaze me. Who was it that Obama said cling to their "guns and religion?" Oh, yeah, it wasn't leftists. . .

  • Moo Cow||

    Its always progressives creating the world. Even though they hold no power. Not even in their own party. The ones who hold the power pretend to be victims. How does this work?

  • Moo Cow||

    Another reply - forgive me.

    "The Republican ticket has embraced a new small-business hero. On Wednesday, the owner of a bakery who last week turned away Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. introduced Representative Paul D. Ryan at a rally in this city where President Obama uttered his "You didn't build that" remark.

    Chris McMurray, the owner of Crumb and Get It Cookie Company with his wife, told a crowd at another small business, a hardware store, "We are gathered here today to send a message to the Obama-Biden team that we did build it.''

    Mr. McMurray said the Biden campaign approached him to ask if the vice president could drop by his cookie shop while campaigning, and he replied, "Nothing personal, but I just happened to disagree with the president and the vice president on a few things."

    The story vaulted from local news to the Drudge Report and conservative blogs, and voilà, Mr. McMurray became the latest small-business owner spotlighted by the Romney-Ryan campaign in a monthlong hammering of Mr. Obama for supposed anti-business attitudes and policies."

  • Naaman Brown||

    A business owner not wanting his/her business used as backdrop for a political campaign stop is one thing. (Owner of Crumb and Get It Cookie Company not hosting a campaign stop.)

    A business owner not serving a meal to a customer because of politics is something else. (Owner of Red Hen not serving a walk-in customer.)

    A business open to the general public should serve members of the general public ignoring politics as long as they behave themselves and just avail themselves of the services the proprietor is offering the general public. If the proprietor wants to pick and chose the politics of his/her patrons, he/she should start a members-only club and issue membership cards after a political background check.

    Operating a business open to the general public means you give up some private property discrimination rights.

  • a tandem||

    That is a specious attempt at analogy. Did Huckabee Sanders enter Red Hen with a film crew filming a campaign commercial? No she entered as a private citizen. The restaurant seated her, they took her order, after a fair amount of time sitting there a member of the staff told her they were refusing service and she must leave.

    You assertion that Red Hen was somehow being asked to endorse her poltical views by serving her, using a case where the Biden campaign was working on a Biden[press event and commercial clearly implying an endorsement, is just not sober.

  • ...||

    Now do black people.

  • HarryLime||

    What are private property rights, and freedom of association. It doesn't mean that the business who does discriminate against any group of people will not in turn lose business for that discrimination. However, those private property rights would enable that business to engage in what is a bad business decision.

  • 1964 civil rights act||

    Tell me more about your illegal ideas

  • Just Say'n||

    Good to see that Reason is being forwarded along by Leftists. That actually makes sense. You got Bill Kristol forwarding along your articles, so it was only natural that statists would join in the fray. Woketarian moment!

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Don't worry. Wenzel just linked this on his site, so all the butthurt alt-right LRC readers, who still hate-read his blog even after they discovered he is a consistent libertarian and doesn't support government intervention in the free movement of labor, will be aling shortly to balance things out.

  • HarryLime||

    You mean legal concepts that are made illegal as gov't cannot allow people to hold monopoly over their own property and how they use it. Gov't would prefer that they hold monopoly and can use threats of violence to enforce their will over private property owners.

    The 1964 Civil Rights Act came about due to Jim Crow. Which came about due to Federal Troops enforcing Federal rules in the South post-Civil War. Which could have been avoided entirely had the Federal Gov't made a very different decision. One that would have been far cheaper. Not only in time, money, but also in human blood.

    Private Property rights are paramount, without such provisions "citizens" are nothing more than permissible subjects than free people.

  • 1964 civil rights act||

    Well, I'm the law so fuck off. What now guy who lost this debate decades ago?

  • HarryLime||

    So you are openly admitting (and proud of that fact from the sounds of things) to be now enslaved by gov't?

    Sounds to me (as well as many others) that the 1964 civil rights act was completely a waste of time and energy, a means to an end of creating a new plantation. A law that wouldn't have been needed had the Federal Gov't simply bought all the slaves and released them upon purchase. Which would have avoided a Civil War and succession of the states.

  • 1964 civil rights act||

    I enjoy your whining but when you're done I'm still the law and you're still fucking off. Whatcha gon do bout it boy?

  • HarryLime||

    Openly disobey the law, as I don't follow bad laws. You don't like it? Too bad, I'll be a Free Man Standing. While you remain a Slave who serves his masters on his knees.

  • 1964 civil rights act||

    Oh yeah? You openly disobey me? You exclude people from your business based on their race and tell them that?

    Nah. You lie. You got 0 skin in the game.

  • HarryLime||

    A small price to pay for standing up to ones principles of private property ownership and freedom of association. I'll start by discriminating against the 1964 civil rights act itself, as the law holds no power on my private property. See Walter Williams on Freedom of Association.

  • 1964 civil rights act||

    So yeah, no skin in the game.

  • HarryLime||

    The onus is on you to prove otherwise.

  • 1964 civil rights act||

    (shut up i'm doing a thing here)

  • Nardz||

    I got it, and am very entertained

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    Hmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

  • HarryLime||

    The irony is that much of the arguments he makes are the same kind of arguments made in defence of Slavery Laws. These people are openly advocating for the enslavement of all. I guess that plays in tandem with equality for all. We are either all equally free to live our lives as we choose, or we are all equally enslaved to gov't.

  • 1964 civil rights act||

    Didn't we already establish that you're all talk? We DID. Ok then.

  • HarryLime||

    We have also established you have no spine and are a willing slave to the establishment.

    The difference is I'm free to speak my mind and act upon those convictions. You can't do anything without pre-approval of your masters.

  • 1964 civil rights act||

    And we have also established that your resistance to me is fully without any consequence to you.

  • HarryLime||

    On the contrary.

  • 1964 civil rights act||

    Yeah more talk. Blah blah.

  • 1964 civil rights act||

    Disobey me and see how I'm all talk.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I saw what old man cock could do back when I was a boy. It was okay.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    In the many ways I could choose to interpret that comment, BUCS, I choose to believe you had a peephole into your grandparents' bedroom.

  • CLM1227||

    Setting aside the lack of freedom for those with no property rights in this scenario, but slavery "as the law" was not a requirement for every free man to own slaves. If you thought the law was unjust, you didn't own slaves.

    In the 1964 CRA, there is no freedom to disobey the law if those discriminated against fall under protected categories. Even Starbucks couldn't remove two loiterers who were protected even though the removal had nothing to do with their protected status.

  • Rebel Scum||

    enslaved by gov't

    Leftists are pro choice, except when they aren't. "my body, my choice" applies to killing fetuses, not to ownership of the product of ones labor.

  • perlchpr||

    Is this actually supposed to be an argument?

    Laws can be repealed.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Well, I'm the law so fuck off."'

    Well there is that old saying. The law is an ass.

  • 1964 civil rights act||

    So step up and disobey me.

  • HarryLime||

    See above

  • 1964 civil rights act||

    You too skinless.

  • HarryLime||

    Too skinless to answer a series of questions and stand up for my principles? If that is skinless I'd hate to see what spineless looks like.

  • 1964 civil rights act||

    Yeah, you got no skin in the game. Questions he says.

  • HarryLime||

    I count at least three questions asked of me by you.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    I love this new form of trolling. We should all impersonate laws just to show how horrible they are. Nice work whoever you are.

  • HarryLime||

    *principals

  • 1964 civil rights act||

    No, you don't understand. Your questions don't matter to me, or change me. You obey me. Or, in your case, you blather on consequence free and obey me when it matters.

  • NashTiger||

    You are arguing with an inanimate 54 year old (menopause) string of words

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""So step up and disobey me.""

    I fought the law, and the law won.

  • 1964 civil rights act||

    I know. I did. What now bruh?

  • Eidde||

    Legal positivism FTW!

  • Azathoth!!||

    Do none of you get it?

    DO something about it.

    Disobey the damned law. Take it up the line WIN.

    Because all this is happening--and getting worse-- because no one is willing to take that stand and stop it.

    Why?

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    Hmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

  • ||

    Incorrect. It is legal and Constitutional. (See the First Amendments right to association).

  • R. K. Phillips||

    Why should it be illegal for a private business to discriminate?

  • Naaman Brown||

    It is bad business to discriminate for BS reasons like the politics or race of a patron who is otherwise peaceable availing themselves of the services/products for which the business is open for business with the public.

    Doesn't matter to me if it's legal or illegal. It's a stupid way to run a business that claims to serve the general public (as long as they behave themselves on the premises).

  • VinniUSMC||

    And that business should be free to make those decisions. If they're not good decisions, then it won't be a business much longer. Problem solved. Sounds like a win to me.

  • Trainer||

    The other half of libertarianism- there are still consequences to those choices that we should be free to make.

  • Ed Grinberg||

    It was once legal to burn witches. What's your point?

  • rferris||

    If you do not have the freedom to make bad, stupid decisions , then you are not free. Just because it is not in your interest to make bad, stupid decisions is no reason to think that freedom is bad or not desirable.

    When other people protect you from your own folly, you are a child or you are child like in your expectations.

    Freedom is messy, stat-ism and fascism can be very tidy.

  • Whorton||

    I suspect in this case, there will be liberal lines out the door. While at the same time, a line of people ready to firebomb the place. I sure as hell would not want to work there...

  • Ed Grinberg||

    The likelihood of someone wanting to firebomb the place is lower if he knows that he can open his own restaurant across the street and exclude anyone he dislikes. But that is not the case...

  • ||

    Same thing applies.

    Why would you want to frequent an establishment that hates you enough to refuse service?

    (Besides, that place would not be in business much longer).

  • ...||

    "Liberals have every reason to wonder why they need to show Trump officials civility when Trump's behavior is so appalling"

    Just gonna leave that there.

  • damikesc||

    Principles, not principals and all.

  • Ron||

    Unlike Obama who said he would put a boot to the neck of those who disagree and gun to knife fight, such civil behavior by the last most recent potus who I would say actually called for violence by supporting BLM and their violence

  • rferris||

    Obama deceived all the time , but only lied when it was important to manipulate the public on big issues.

    Trump tells small lies and exaggerations all the time, but deceives no one. He is the most truthful on the big issues.

    Obama was civil to a fault and led from behind..............We were popular among world leaders in the way that the one who picks up the check is popular among moochers. We led no one any where.

    Trump is leading from way out front. The Moochers are not happy.

    The media only told us good about Obama, the media only tells us bad about Trump.

    This is what is truly appalling!!!

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Liberals' Hatred Will Inevitably Turn Into Violence
    So the leftists attempt to intimidate us into submission, showing up at people's houses and screaming at them in restaurants. Take that, Sarah! The idea is since the leftists can't convince Normals with the power of their ideas – because leftists' ideas inevitably involve Normals ceding more of their rights and money to leftists – the left wants to make submission and obedience the price for being able to participate in the culture. But what's inevitable is that us newly militant Normals, whose power is political rather than cultural, are going to respond pursuant to the New Rules and demand that leftists bake us a cake.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    So the leftists attempt to intimidate us into submission, showing up at people's houses and screaming at them in restaurants. Take that, Sarah! The idea is since the leftists can't convince Normals with the power of their ideas – because leftists' ideas inevitably involve Normals ceding more of their rights and money to leftists – the left wants to make submission and obedience the price for being able to participate in the culture. But what's inevitable is that us newly militant Normals, whose power is political rather than cultural, are going to respond pursuant to the New Rules and demand that leftists bake us a cake.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    This Is Just the Beginning
    I do not believe that Trump administration officials should be able to live their lives in peace and affluence while they inflict serious harms on large portions of the American population. Not being able to go to restaurants and attend parties and be celebrated is just the minimum baseline here. These people, who are pushing America merrily down the road to fascism and white nationalism, are delusional if they do not think that the backlash is going to get much worse. Wait until the recession comes. Wait until Trump starts a war. Wait until the racism this administration is stoking begins to explode into violence more frequently. Read a fucking history book. Read a recent history book. The U.S. had thousands of domestic bombings per year in the early 1970s. This is what happens when citizens decide en masse that their political system is corrupt, racist, and unresponsive. The people out of power have only just begun to flex their dissatisfaction.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Schlichter and Nolan deserve each other. Maybe they can settle their differences with a duel or something.

  • damikesc||

    Schlichter doesn't love that things are as they are. He just sees that they are. The other piece was actively seeking mayhem.

    So be it.

    We have the guns.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Schlichter doesn't love that things are as they are. He just sees that they are.

    Bullshit. He WANTS the next war.

  • damikesc||

    Nothing I've read of his indicates that.

    He just recognizes that the Progs and the GOP Establishment HATES conservatives and to realize that (that McCain was on board with the IRS targeting Tea Party groups shows that). To stop giving them benefit of the doubt with their "mistakes". And that all of this is going to end badly but nothing will change until it ends badly.

  • damikesc||

    Nothing I've read of his indicates that.

    He just recognizes that the Progs and the GOP Establishment HATES conservatives and to realize that (that McCain was on board with the IRS targeting Tea Party groups shows that). To stop giving them benefit of the doubt with their "mistakes". And that all of this is going to end badly but nothing will change until it ends badly.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Oh give me a fkn break. He wrote an entire 'fiction' book fantasizing about the next civil war. The entire theme of his articles is 'you'd better stop doing that otherwise my trigger finger will get itchy'. He is about a hair's breadth away from inciting open rebellion. And yet people like you give him the benefit of the doubt.

  • tzx4||

    Here, and in any other commentary thread, I think that particularly incendiary and radical posts need to be taken with a big grain of salt. Keep in mind that there are interest groups domestic and foreign who want to foster and amplify division and anger in the USA, and they certainly masquerade as Righties and Lefties.

  • Ariki||

    But we'd prefer the option the liberals have ignored – a return to a society where disputes are resolved via the processes outlined in the Constitution and the individual rights set forth within it are respected. - Kurt Schlichter

    Yep sounds like he wants that war alright.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    jeffy, you truly are delusional, where do you purchase your tinfoil hats?

  • hello.||

    He is about a hair's breadth away from inciting open rebellion. And yet people like you give him the benefit of the doubt.

    As opposed to the Reason staffers who have literally called for violence against conservative speakers and race riots and violence against cops. And yet people like you give them the benefit of the doubt. It's weird it's almost like you're a crypto-communist who happens to agree exclusively with the opinions of other crypto-communists.

  • 1964 civil rights act||

    JOOOHHHHHNNNNN chemjeff is biting your "reads minds" thing.

  • Nardz||

    Shut up, law.
    You've no jurisdiction here!

  • ThomasD||

    Imputing and impugning other people's motives is Jeff's leitmotif.

  • Whorton||

    And I suppose you think those of a differing mindset are just going to roll over and take it. . .That the left will launch a few domestic bombings and the totality of the right will just cave.

    You are sure that we are headed to Fascism, but who is leading the riotous mobs today? You are doing your best to make republicans the new Jews for YOUR jackbooted tactics.

    You are sure Trump will start a war, or a recession is coming. Who are we going to start a war with? North Korea? We were closer to that under Obama. Recession? You know nothing of economics or what a 250 BILLION TRADE DEFICIT means. You have no conception of the danger of opening our borders and letting all of South and Central America in.

    You challenge the reader to read a "Recent" history book. I am guessing you mean Zinn's falsified version of Anti-American crap. Do some serious research bunky, and grow up. Remember it is those pesky republicans and "fly over" country people that have most of those weapons, control the farms, and electrical generation and gas pipelines that keep the cities running.

    Believe me, you don't want the sort of war you seem to be pulling for.

  • Could not connect to remo||

    Cut the crap, Torso. Trump is not doing anything that Obama didn't also do. Look it up. Obama separated children from their families as a deterrent. Of course, the ly nig left-wing media never reported it and the liberal morons never said jack sh*t about it, either. This bullcrap about this being a new policy MUST STOP NOW.

    This is all about the butthurt liberals who didn't get their #1 criminal, Shillary Klinton, elected. The phony baloney Democraps, Pelosi, Schumer, Clinton (Bill & Hillary) were all talking tough on immigration in the late 1990's and early 2000's. They were all about toughing up the border. Now, because they've been slaughtered in every election, they must have illegal immigrants to pad their voter rolls.

    Obama was the Real Hitler in this country.

  • Shoreline1||

    You are correct. It's not just a Trump thing. It's not just an Obama thing. It's what our government does here in the land of the free. Maybe it's time to examine our freedom, to ask if we are really free. This government is already hunting you, they have agents out watching for you to do something wrong. They have cops with weapons, lawyers, and soldiers lined up ready to put you in your proper place. They have zero tolerance for those that think they are free. To them, freedom means "those things the government allows you to do". History shows graphically that governments are not to be trusted.

  • HarryLime||

    TL;DR The plan being used is to have a very active and vocal ostracization campaign

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Liberals' Hatred Will Inevitably Turn Into Violence

    Peddling fear again, I see. The Second Civil War can't come soon enough for the Schlichter's out there.

  • Just Say'n||

    "I'll take things that were never said about wedding bakers and florists being forced out of business by government for $500, Alex"

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Totally different than calling trump hitler. Nope, no fear mongering there at all.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    No, it's not terribly different in kind. Only in degree.

    People like Schlichter however make their entire living by selling fear.

  • damikesc||

    Well, there was that attempt to flip the House thru assassination.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Unlike maxine waters. Or reason writers. Or politicians. But this is special. Alinsky's rules only apply to the #woke.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Yes of course!

    Scumbags on the right justify scumbags on the left!
    Scumbags on the left justify scumbags on the right!

    And round and round it goes!

  • ||

    Justice!

  • hello.||

    Sure seems that way when you have a whatabout at the ready for anything you mistakenly perceive as scumbags on the right but ceaselessly defend every action of the left.

  • Ecoli||

    When the Dems lose in November, they are gonna ratchet up the violence, and the left media will be busy spraying gas on the fire.

    It will be ugly. To be sure.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

  • Whorton||

    Resorting to animal cruelty now to make their point? Are these the same disturbed children the left prognosticates are going to be responsible for the glorious new rebellion?

  • ||

    One has to wonder as well how many degrees of separation should incur the incivility penalty. Direct WH staff? Family of WH staff? US GOP party leadership? State GOP party leadership? GOP Mayor? GOP political activist? GOP voter? GOP voter's family?

    In no way is this a positive social trend.

  • BYODB||

    It's inevitable, kulaks and wreckers must be ground down into dust. This is known.

  • Ron||

    the libs have learned well from Hitlers brown shirt tactics and Mao's red guard ,they sure know who's techniques to follow when tehy need to silence opposition

  • damikesc||

    Mike Huckabee is now claiming the Red Hen followed Sarah to the next restaurant and set up a protest there.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Like, the whole restaurant went and followed her?

  • damikesc||

    God my writing is awful.

    The owner did.

    Allegedly.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I was hoping that the whole restaurant rose up and started following her. That's a good Spike Lee style ending.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Just the Red Hen. The rooster couldn't be bothered.

  • Ariki||

    He had better things to do than virtue signal emotion.

  • J Ortega y Gasset||

    Leftists, fascists... they all are authoritarians, just with differing ideas how to use the truncheon of government. If the Red Hen wants to risk business by catering to a particular political perspective, fine. The checks and balances of those sorts of decisions are the marketplace.

  • Bender B. Rodriguez||

    "the marketplace." That stupid thing again? What's it ever done for anyone?

  • Fairbanks||

    If one is libertarian it's irrelevant what the marketplace reaction is or whether there are any checks and balances at all. This is a freedom of association issue.

  • Ariki||

    It not "irrelevant".
    The market will act as a check and balance on the freedom of association when applied in a business context.
    I think a business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason they choose, however the social validity of their choice will be, and should be, arbitrated by the market.

    Refusing to serve someone wearing gang patches, or KKK hoods will have a different market reaction than refusing people by their skin colour, gender, or religion (unless that religion, race, or gender is trying to kill you).
    As such the market is a much more accurate description of the "will of the people" than any arbitrary law.

    The problem with this system is, of course, the ability of those within the market to evaluate truth from lies, and resist the human tenancy towards group think.
    Or perhaps witch hunts are a natural occurrence of the free market? Who knows, burning people sounds fun.

  • Whorton||

    One thing is for sure, it will be a contentious place that I would not want to eat at. Even if I liked the place.

    Questionable food, prepared by gay activists with ineffective management, in a contentious environment.

    Great business decision.

  • Just Say'n||

    "I think more people should be honest about the fact that we don't really know for certain, which is another reason why the libertarian approach of letting people set the rules of engagement on their own property—at the Red Hen, and at Masterpiece Cake Shop—is the best policy."

    It's curious how an explicit defense of Masterpiece Cakeshop was never written in this publication and, if anything, it was "too be sure"d when ever their position was defended. Especially during the 2016 election when your publication endorsed the most anti-freedom of association candidate in the entire election cycle.

    Are you guys running a parody site of what a shitty libertarian would think?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Look, not baling the cake should be allowed, but it's vile and reprehensible. Whereas if you disagree on the politics of immigration, well all actions are understandable.

  • ||

    It's curious how an explicit defense of Masterpiece Cakeshop was never written in this publication and, if anything, it was "too be sure"d when ever their position was defended

    So they did defend it, or they didn't?

    your publication endorsed the most anti-freedom of association candidate in the entire election cycle.


    Reason endorsed Clinton?
  • Just Say'n||

    Johnson, Clinton- was there really a difference at the end of the day?

    I guess, in theory, Johnson wanted to reduce government spending, although he offered as many specifics as Trump did. Then there is the fact that Johnson endorsed: "bake the cake"; burka bans; carbon taxes, and forced inoculation at one time or another during the election.

    Which is not to say that Trump was markedly different from Johnson and Clinton.

    Just face it: you voted for Democrat-lite

  • ||

    Johnson, Clinton- was there really a difference at the end of the day?

    Yes. There were quite a lot of differences actually. Think for two seconds and you'll come up with a few.

  • Just Say'n||

    List them

  • ||

    Foreign policy
    Regulation of businesses
    Taxation
    Free speech
    Drug legalization
    Sex work legalization
    Anti-cronyism
    Advocating state & local rights

    That took me about two seconds.

  • ||

    But I suspect that you're one of those for whom "we should be willing to have a conversation with those who say they want to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill" = "I want to confiscate all guns and place all gun owners on a watch list," in which case, yeah, GayJay totally = HRC.

  • Just Say'n||

    You're right about the gun position. Weld kind of kills that strength, though. But, you're right that the guns part is a big difference.

  • a tandem||

    Can you name a gun control lobby group that did not support DC in Heller which was exactly an assertion a US jurisdictions could ban guns>

    DC and all the gun control groups were saying that a US jurisdiction could ban guns, even revolvers in a quick access safe, even for US citizens who passed background checks, had training, and had no criminal record, mental illness or domestic violence or threat history whatsoever.

    As far as lists of legal gun owners, and the implication there would be none, Obama's own DOJ under Holder said that universal background check schemes would not work without one. Can we name country that has not used such lists to confiscate firearms even from law abiding through retroactive laws?

    On the mentally ill, are we talking about the 3/4 the country that might have transient depression at some point? or the adjudicated mentally ill?

    beyond the adjudicated mentally ill this would require a list, just like for adjudicated today. Do we want a federal list of everyone with depression or a mild anxiety disorder? Do we want want to insure people with mild or even serious depression never seek mental health counseling or care since they can be put on a list to deprive them of a set of rights?

  • Just Say'n||

    He was no different than Trump on foreign policy. Even the Weekly Standard praised Johnson in 2012. Think about that.

    www.weeklystandard.com/john-mc.....tarian-war

    The guy who is advocating "Bake the Cake" cared about free speech? Seriously?

  • ||

    The guy who is advocating "Bake the Cake" cared about free speech? Seriously?

    Yes. GayJay's biggest problem, particularly during debates, was his tendency to try to think on his feet (which he's not very good at) and make a great show of considering different points of view fairly, which made him seem milquetoasty and uncommitted to his positions, especially in contrast with the unreflective certainty that both McAfee and Peterson showed (and which I personally found off-putting).

    But early on in summer 2016 I took the ISideWith poll and came up 93% in agreement with GayJay and less than 20% in agreement with HRC.

    How does that comport with your assertion that there's just no daylight to be found between HRC and GayJay? Because the WS doesn't condemn every single thing he says he's therefore a NeoCon? Because he doesn't cite Rothbard chapter and verse he is therefore a fascist?

  • BYODB||


    ...especially in contrast with the unreflective certainty that both McAfee and Peterson showed (and which I personally found off-putting).


    I can agree there. McAfee especially was kind of a WTF pick given his legal troubles. I mean, sure, it was Belize but...notably from what I've read even the Belize police think McAfee is paranoid and a little nuts.

    Like libertarianism, McAfee did not enjoy wide appeal. Frankly, I don't even remember Peterson so...that's about all I can say about him.

  • ||

    even the Belize police think McAfee is paranoid and a little nuts.

    Cocaine will do that to you . . .

    I don't even remember Peterson so...that's about all I can say about him.

    I thought Kennedy was spot on - he talks in a series of bumper stickers. And I have to take this opportunity to point out that I called his jumping ship and joining the Repubs once he'd sown his bona-fides the first time I saw him at the debates.

  • hello.||

    I thought Kennedy was spot on - he talks in a series of bumper stickers.

    Lol. Coming form the simpleton who lapped up 8 years of:

    Hope and Change.

    We are the ones we are waiting for.

    Yes we can!

  • hello.||

    How does that comport with your assertion that there's just no daylight to be found between HRC and GayJay?

    Because ISideWith is a shitty platform that takes generic partisan platform principles and substitutes them for things the candidates have actually said and furthermore parses things to exaggerate minor differences between the parties. The fact that you had to take an ISideWith poll in the first place pretty much shows what an intellectually bankrupt know-nothing you are.

  • SIV||

    Johnson was explicitly in favor of foreign wars not in our national interest. His foreign policy was the same as Samantha Power's.

    Johnson supported switching to a universal retail economic transaction-based tax which was to be "mitigated" by putting everyone in the US on the dole.

    Johnson explicitly opposed legalizing any drug other than marijuana.

    Johnson was on the record saying that sex workers were the "victims" of prostitution.

    "Anti-cronyism" Lol! Where do I begin?

  • ||

    Johnson was explicitly in favor of foreign wars not in our national interest.

    List?

    Johnson explicitly opposed legalizing any drug other than marijuana.

    Cite?

    Johnson was on the record saying that sex workers were the "victims" of prostitution.

    And? He supports prostitution being illegal? He's also anti-abortion, but is against outlawing abortion.

    "Anti-cronyism" Lol! Where do I begin?

    Where doI you begin? Honestly curious. And you really think this adds up to "exactly like HRC?"

    Really?

  • BYODB||

    Perhaps more proof that 'Moderate Libertarian' is indeed an oxymoron?

    If anyone fit that bill, Johnson would I think. That was kind of the point, even (two former governors, remember). Any potentially successful Libertarian probably would be, which might help explain the overall failing of the Libertarian party.

    One thing I can pretty confidently say is that if you can't successfully turn the Republican party onto a more libertarian path than you probably will have even less success with such a fragmented yet purist ideology presented as an alternative 3rd party. RE: Constitution Party.

  • hello.||

    List?

    TWS: So, you think that the United States, even if it weren't in its own narrow national interest, even if we weren't threatened by the [other] country, but there was a genocide going on—a clear genocide—it would be the right thing to do to go in and stop that?

    GARY JOHNSON: Yes. Yes, I do.

    Cite?

    Q: Let me ask about that. Of all the drugs that are illegal, the only you're favoring legalizing is marijuana.

    JOHNSON: Yes.

    Q: Why is that?

    JOHNSON: Well, in my lifetime, I don't think heroin is going to be legal, and I think there's a real misunderstanding if you talk about "legal heroin." Perhaps there's not a misunderstanding if you talk about "harm reduction strategies" that do work, reducing death, disease, crime, corruption, things that people really care about. And you can look at Zurich & Vancouver as examples, but it's a segue into talking about the issue as a health issue as opposed to a criminal justice issue; there's only so much that people can digest at one time. I think that legalization of marijuana is going to happen. I think that California this fall will be the tipping point, that Californians will vote to legalize recreational marijuana. That's going to be a quantum leap forward for the whole country when it comes to understanding the issues surrounding drugs.

  • hello.||

    Where doI you begin? Honestly curious.

    Coming from somebody so ill informed and so desperate to stay that way it's an ironic question.

  • Robby Soave||

    The Reason Foundation (which publishes this magazine) submitted an amicus brief in support of Masterpiece Cake Shop. We're total cucks, huh?

  • Just Say'n||

    Didn't the Reason Foundation join the lawsuit after the 2016 election? Is there a link to an article in defense of the cake baker, with the strong conviction of as this?

  • ||

    Shorter JS: "Okay, so you did explicitly defend them, but you didn't explicitly agree with them. Fascists!"

  • Just Say'n||

    Just seems like more articles were written during the election labeling anyone who disagreed with Johnson's "curious position" as conservative:

    www.reason.com/blog/2016/06/07.....-goodbye-t

    www.reason.com/blog/2016/08/15.....bertarians

    Then after the 2016 election the Reason foundation joined the side of the baker

  • Just Say'n||

    So if National Review was shilling for Trump all during the primaries and the election and then they suddenly took issue with his position on immigration and filed suit against that position, you wouldn't find that to be curious?

  • ||

    So if National Review was shilling for Trump all during the primaries and the election and then they suddenly took issue with his position on immigration and filed suit against that position, you wouldn't find that to be curious?

    Not particularly, no. I would expect a right-leaning magazine to support the right-leaning candidate even it turned around and opposed some of his policies post-election.

    I don't mean to over-snark, because I agree with 85-90% of what you post on these pages, but you've got a real "No True Scotsman" problem that I think you should seriously consider, because you dump a lot of time and energy into it for no productive reason.

  • Just Say'n||

    You might be right on the last point. Fair enough

  • Azathoth!!||

    Yup.


    It's curious how an explicit defense of Masterpiece Cakeshop was never written in this publication

    That's what the endless equivocation gets you.

    You're pro-liberty, or you're not. And lately, Reason's been falling on the 'not' side.

  • MarkLastname||

    Cucks for Cake. How many cakes did they bake for you to get you do write the brief (and let them sleep with your wives?)?

  • creech||

    Prog acquaintance tells me that public accommodation laws are necessary for persons with traits they can't change - such as color, disability, gender, gay. But freely chosen traits, such as political views, religion, cleanliness, can be discriminated against. Don't like being refused service? Then change your political views or your religion. I couldn't get an answer why, in this day of apparently being able to choose one's gender or race, there should be any protected people at all..

  • ||

    But freely chosen traits, such as political views, religion, cleanliness, can be discriminated against. Don't like being refused service? Then change your political views or your religion.

    Does your acquaintance apply that to Muslims, or just to Christians?

  • Just Say'n||

    It is known that conservatives only defend Christians and progressives (and the laughably named ACLU) only defend Muslims.

  • Just Say'n||

    This is actually true. There are very few people who defend the religious rights of Christians, Jews, Muslims, and everything under the sun.

    Except the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

  • ||

    There are very few people who defend the religious rights of Christians, Jews, Muslims, and everything under the sun.

    I've noticed that. Whether or not people agree with my suggestion that it's okay to discriminate against people for ideological reasons depends on whether the most recent person mentioned was Muslim or Christian, liberal or conservative. Few seem to be able to apply it universally.

    The essence is that we should be free to discriminate against wrong-thinking people, not against right-thinking people.

  • jomo||

    There is a difference between discrimination based on religion versus discrimination based on how someone acts and justifies their actions with religion. I for one fully support someone's rights to practice their own lives in Christian or Muslim or whatever beliefs. My problem starts when they want to use that as a basis to justify how they treat or legislate against others. I will not tolerate my wife being forced to wear a burka when a Muslim politician says she has to because Allah. Similarly I will not tolerate Jeff Sessions saying kids should be locked in cages because the Bible. This should not be hard to grasp. The reason it's so easy for righty snowflakes to claim that Christians are persecuted while Muslims are left alone is because in a majority Christian nation where politicians fall all over themselves to out-"Christian" one another, their hypocrisy and bad policies get called out more often because there are more of them, doing more of it. It really is that simple.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    Nice try, but no.

  • jomo||

    By all means please enlighten me on how I am incorrect.

  • jomo||

    And I promise you, if Keith Ellison ever comes out an says that everyone should have to swear on a Quran to be sworn into office, I might start to believe you. You seem to forget how many Roy Moores are out there.

  • JWatts||

    Come on now. What he means is that Left wing groups should be protected and Right wing groups should be punished. You are attempting to read way to much logic into it.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    Actually sounds like he's restating the effed-up logic used by progressives, which sounds reasonable for about 5 seconds until you start trying to think about it.

  • PaulS||

    Does your "Prog acquaintance" view getting married as a choice?

  • CLM1227||

    Well, gender is changeable now, so we should totally take that off the list.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Effete little pansy snowflake Rico Suave: "I'm not a leftist, but the left is absolutely right about everything, their opponents are deplorable, and this sort of behavior is only bad because it might cause the Trumpmonster deplorables to potentially retaliate."

    You're the worst fake libertarian on the face of the earth, Sally.

  • hello.||

    Nah the ladies are worse. It's Elizabeth Nolan Brown and Shikha Dalmia who are out there advocating for acts of violence against people they disagree with. Of course it's not surprising the women would have more balls and aggression than Robby.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Even so, libertarians should defend a private property owner's right to eject a government official from the premises.

    I will, so long as we're clear on what "defend a private property owner's right" means. It means I oppose the government punishing the property owner, or anyone punishing the property owner by using force or fraud. But that doesn't mean the property owner should be shielded from criticism. If her actions anger current or prospective customers she's just gonna have to deal with that.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    Right. I'm completely fine with the Red Hen making this decision.

    What SHOULD happen is that conservatives should cry foul and call for a boycott of this particular restaurant, and the restaurant's business should suffer greatly. Making a decision that alienates a decent portion of your customer base should be detrimental. It's the same reason businesses shouldn't refuse service to blacks or gays-they should want as wide a customer base as possible in order to maximize profits.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    What SHOULD happen is that conservatives should cry foul and call for a boycott of this particular restaurant

    "Fowl" was sitting right there for you to pun with. *shakes head in disgust*

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    This is the state of modern politics. This is Trump's America.

  • perlchpr||

    Boycott?

    What a terrible idea.

    On the contrary. Show up in droves. During the dinner rush. Individually. Get seated. Order tea.

    Nothing else. Just tea. And then sit there. For hours. Enjoying your tea. Filling the entire restaurant, taking every table, and generating absolutely no profit for the business.

    And, of course, even a 20% tip on a $2 cup of tea won't do much to boost the income of the wait staff, either.

  • Echo Chamber||

    how Alinskyesque that would be

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    Bring a few cockroaches to release ...

  • hello.||

    It's the same reason businesses shouldn't refuse service to blacks or gays-they should want as wide a customer base as possible in order to maximize profits.

    Gays represent 2-5% of the population so it's not really a big social risk to alienate them in the absence of their mob of perpetually aggrieved proxy warriors.

  • BYODB||


    Even so, libertarians should defend a private property owner's right to eject a government official from the premises.


    Question from the audience:


    Can someone get kicked out of a restaurant because they're catholic or black? Or only if they're a 'government employee'?


    Waters seems to be encouraging people to form angry mobs to harass Trump officials; if such a practice became normal, it could very well get out of hand quickly.


    Yeah, see, after talking about freedom of association it becomes noticeable that freedom of association isn't what's being discussed. Curious.

  • Just Say'n||

    The Reason position is essentially no different from the Left's position (which makes complete sense to anyone who has been paying attention for the past four years). Essentially, freedom of association is important, but not if you are a "protected class" then the government should come in and smash you.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Who will hire Robby for his next job? Unless NR is hiring, it will be some leftist editor.

  • hello.||

    Salon. Without a doubt.

  • BYODB||

    Oh, I'm fully aware. The notion of protected classes of people spits in the eye of equal protection under the law, and here we see this made explicit.

    Legislating morality never goes out of style.

  • Cy||

    Of course it won't, they've slippery sloped it into authoritarianism and now they get to pick the morals. The civil rights acts, fair housing laws, sexual harassment laws were all just a precursor to the victim empowerment society we have today.

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    I may have to take up a religion so I can get protected class status. Anyone know of one that requires me to do basically nothing?

  • Shirley Knott||

    The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
    May you be touched by His noodle appendages.

  • juris imprudent||

    Wearing a collandar on your head isn't exactly nothing.

  • Cy||

    No, but it pretty sexy.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    What does the hymnal look like?

  • Just Say'n||

    True story, Pastafarians have been provided religious accommodation to wear colanders in their drivers license photos.

  • perlchpr||

    Discordianism.

  • Iheartskeet||

    Speaking as a Catholic: Catholicism.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Converting has been taking awhile. At least for me. Maybe I missed the easier path.

  • BYODB||


    ...Maybe I missed the easier path.

    Just start showing up to mass. As long as you don't eat the cookie no one will care (and depending on the diocese, they might not care even then.)

  • WoodChipperBob||

    If you just start showing up *and* eating the cookie, as long as you look like you know what you're doing, nobody is likely to even ask.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    As an ex-Catholic this is true, they don't punch your buy 9, get one free communion card.

  • Rat on a train||

    There's a high hurdle to get in. After that you can coast the rest of your life.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    I believe you're looking for SQRSLY

  • Eidde||

    I gave your name to the Unitarians, Episcopalians, and certain Catholic dioceses.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Buy a prayer rug. You can advocate for genocide and still get a pass from the left.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I may have to take up a religion so I can get protected class status. Anyone know of one that requires me to do basically nothing?

    The Congregation Of Exalted Reason may be your huckleberry.

  • Just Say'n||

    "Just as libertarians wouldn't want a Christian cake baker to be forced to endorse a same-sex wedding by preparing a cake for it, we shouldn't force a restaurant owner to serve a government official involved in policies the owner believes are immoral."

    "I'll take things that were never said in Reason during the 2016 election for $500, Alex"

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    What is your point? Not all libertarians are on board with freedom of association absolutism? That shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. The right-libertarians who support strict border enforcement don't favor freedom of association between employer and employee if the two parties don't have the correct permissions from the state, and the left-libertarians who support the civil rights act don't favor freedom of association for bigoted business owners. Is your complaint that Reason writers didn't work hard enough against Hillary? That it should be just another foot soldier on the right-wing alliance against the Evil Leftist Empire?

  • Just Say'n||

    My point is that you are a hypocrite and so are nearly all the writers here

  • Just Say'n||

    Some have argued here that immigration is protected under "freedom of association", even though most immigration into this country was not invited by anyone else. But, somehow this "freedom of association" does not extend to domestic business, unless, of course, they are excluding others for "woke" reasons.

    Whatever you want to call that position it has very very little to do with reducing the size and scope of the state. Actually, it sounds more like progressivism more than anything else

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Okay, so how am I a hypocrite on this matter?

    And perhaps, libertarians should not just mimic either the left-wing or the right-wing narrative on freedom of association.

  • Just Say'n||

    Well, maybe I shouldn't have impugned you, chemjeff. I usually agree with your position.

    But, you're right. Libertarians should not mimic the left-wing or right-wing narrative on freedom of association, but that is exactly what Reason is doing. There is little daylight between their defense of "bake the cake" Johnson and supporting the restaurant in this case with the Left's support for "bake the cake" as a position and supporting the restaurant in this case.

  • 1964 civil rights act||

    What is the right wing narrative?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    That freedom of association should be limited in some instances (immigration) but not others (baking gay wedding cakes).

  • Just Say'n||

    Or rather that freedom of association should be limited in some instances (when a private employer's beliefs don't conform with mine) but not others (immigration).

    That about sums up the progressive position that you just happen to ascribe to, but you are most definitely not a progressive for reasons.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I don't believe in the state limiting freedom of association.

  • Just Say'n||

    Like I said, above, I'm sorry for impugning you. I usually agree with your points.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Don't worry about it. I appreciate your point of view as well.

  • hello.||

    Other than when you rabidly defended using state force to make bakers bake cakes for faggots. Other than that.

  • BYODB||

    It's curious how those who believe so vehemently about this freedom of association never talk about emigration, which by your logic is a direct affront to every citizens right to leave the United States and enter whatever nation they might wish to go into.

    No, it seems that your ire is only directed at the United States for limiting entry of non-citizens.

    I'm sure it's purely by accident that you never argue in favor of citizens having the same rights as non-citizens.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    There is a reason why I speak in terms of general principles. Because I don't only favor the rights of citizens of this country to associate with citizens of other countries, in this one, I also favor the rights of citizens of other countries to associate with citizens of this country, in their countries. I've never argued otherwise.

  • BYODB||

    You're very good at missing the point. The point is that it's a two-way street, yet somehow everyone only ever looks at immigration.

    Odd how you're not more pissed off about a very real limitation on your own rights when you're so outspoken about those of other people.

    Either you're a saint or an idiot, but I suppose there's no rule against being both.

  • perlchpr||

    This seems unfair. Yes, I complain more about America's policies than Mexico's. I'm an American. I get to vote here. America is the place I might actually have some say in how it's run.

  • BYODB||

    Last I checked reality cares not for 'fair', the point is that you can't stand on principle on this issue.

    When people try they look like a fool, so they ignore it hoping you are one.

  • BYODB||

    Also, because I wanted to address this:

    Yes, I complain more about America's policies than Mexico's. I'm an American. I get to vote here. America is the place I might actually have some say in how it's run.


    Caring more about America's policies is rational, don't get me wrong. You're not wrong that American policies are the only thing we have any theoretical direct control over, but that's sort of the point of domestic immigration controls among many, many others.

    Would you feel the same way if, say, the Australian prison systems sentenced Australians to banishment in the United States for murder?

    Don't let demagogues talk you into missing what's right in front of you. It's shockingly easy, apparently.

  • ThomasD||

    It is an entirely discordant argument for an open borders proponent to selectively claim that "it's different because I'm from here."

    Either borders have meaning, or they do not.

  • damikesc||

    Yeah, Reason may "oppose" it --- but as we saw last week, it is easy to see what they REALLY oppose.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Remember, kids, if you don't agree with someone on 100% of the issues that means you should take your toys and go home. It's what the tolerant do. Oh, but if they decide to reciprocate, well, that's just vile and infantile because you're right(tm).

  • Cynical Asshole||

    How about "any business should have the right to freely associate - or not - with anyone for any reason whatsoever." I know, I know: crazy talk.

  • LarryWilson||

    Nothing crazy about it.

    What is crazy is these clowns thinking they should then be immune from the free market consequences of their idiocy.

    You see, Sarah never suggested an administrative remedy.

    She's letting the free market fix this.

    Sarah took the libertarian route.

    Be like Sarah.

  • MarkLastname||

    Are you insinuating that people actually own their businesses like they own their houses and cars? That all businesses aren't really just on lease from the state?

    Because that's just anti-science.

  • Rebel Scum||

    Sanders is complicit in fascism

    That you can boot her from your restaurant without government retribution proves otherwise.

  • JWatts||

    Yeah that's a moronic complaint, though he did imply that's what Leftists are saying.

    But then he completely muddied his point by saying:

    "the purposeful separation of immigrant families and mistreatment of children offers better evidence of this than anything we've seen previously from this administration"

    Look, the separation is wrong: But a) the Obama administration did it, b) at best the outrage at the time was very mooted and c) the current system to deal with illegal immigration is intentionally flawed and d) placing kids in CPS for a few months is Not frakin' fascism.

    If it were, the US has been a completely fascist country for at least 50 years. Thousands of American children are placed in CPS custody every day. And many are placed there for trivial offenses. It's perfectly ok to say that Trump's policies are just as bad as taking kids away from their parents for smoking pot. It's completely bullshit to imply that it's frakin' fascism.

    On the other hand, Trump has backed down from the policy and this New policy from the Left of intentional harrassment is going to completely backfire on the Left. And the tears will be delicious.

  • Rebel Scum||

    Thousands of American children are placed in CPS custody every day.

    They are also necessarily separated from their parents when their parents are arrested and there is nothing wrong with that. But the outrage machine's gotta outrage.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    The Trump administration's press secretary then exited without complaint.

    Wait, it's not going to the Supreme Court as a civil rights case? What's going on in America?

    The incident became a national news story after a waiter wrote about it on Facebook, and Sanders confirmed it in a tweet.

    So wait, the story was leaked by the wait staff and she had to confirm on twitter? America has gone nuts.

  • ThomasD||

    Damn those Trumpists for making people show their inner asshole.

  • LarryWilson||

    No true libertarian ever suggested that The Red Hen should not be allowed to kick Sarah out.

    But no true libertarian believes that the Wilkinson should not be surprised when social media and the free market eviscerates her.

    Wilkinson fucked up. She then threw her gay employees under the bus. Just as it is her right to discriminate, it is my right to point out that the restaurant site should be repurposed as a homeless shelter and Wilkinson is a hateful spineless piece of shit who should suck start a can of mace.

  • perlchpr||

    She then threw her gay employees under the bus.

    Enh? I haven't heard this part of the story.

  • LarryWilson||

    From the Washington Post.

    Wilkinson: "Several Red Hen employees are gay, she said."

    "Tell me what you want me to do. I can ask her to leave," Wilkinson told her staff, she said. "They said 'yes.' "

    Wilkinson is a spineless piece of shit.

  • KevinP||

    Yeah, this was the biggest piece of BS of all. Wilkinson is the OWNER of the restaurant.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Probably best Sanders was asked to leave so Wilkinson's walking biomed experiment employees didn't purposefully infect her food.

  • dwshelf||

    The libertarian take is "the government should not get involved". Curious how the author conflates being libertarian with acceptance of incivility.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Yes. Freedom of association will sometimes result in uncivil or disgusting behavior.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    It is a bit rich to see the Reason Republicans here complain about Reason's sometimes inconsistent defense of freedom of association when they themselves, for the most part, completely reject freedom of association between employer and employee, if those two parties don't have the correct permissions from the state.

    I think the fairest statement that can be made on this subject is that libertarians are conflicted on the matter. IMHO they really shouldn't be, but they are. Throwing gasoline on the fire by complaining "you don't support the right-wing version of freedom of association so you're total hypocrites!!!!" doesn't add anything productive to the conversation.

  • Just Say'n||

    Since when did the first clause to the First Amendment become "right-wing version of freedom of association"? Since the ACLU stopped supporting it?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The first clause of the First Amendment is the absolutist position on freedom of association, it seems to me anyway.

    The right-wing version is that freedom of association should be limited in some instances but not others. That is also, by the way, the left-wing version, just different instances.

  • Just Say'n||

    Well, I just want to stick to the first clause of the First Amendment which is not being done here

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    And instead we have your left wing version which requires association through immigration. But that's different because you like it. Get rid of the welfare state and there won't be a conflict.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I've never supported compulsory association.

  • hello.||

    Cool can I get a refund on the living stipends and travel costs I've been paying to relocate your sainted migrants then?

  • Nardz||

    It's hilarious that CJ thinks "freedom of association" supersedes every other portion of the constitution, including the responsibility of the government for national defense.

    Must we allow your friend with Ebola to immigrate? What about tuberculosis, or smallpox?
    Another question: should hospitals be allowed to hire and allow to practice surgery people who haven't gone to medical school?
    Careful here, lest you risk your belief in freedom of association.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well in general, individual rights are paramount above a state's authority, yeah. The state only exists at the behest of individuals begrudgingly accepting it. So yeah I am loathe to put individual rights at an inferior position to state power.

    Preventing people with horrible diseases, or known international criminals, from freely moving, are two of the areas where I can accept limitations on free association. Because the a priori likelihood for harm to other people is very very high. One cannot say that about simply associating with others.

    Another question: should hospitals be allowed to hire and allow to practice surgery people who haven't gone to medical school?
    Careful here, lest you risk your belief in freedom of association.

    In a completely privatized realm of health care? Sure. And I would expect insurance companies to charge exorbitantly high premiums to private hospitals which don't hire actual doctors to perform surgeries. And I would expect any hospital which did stupidly allow non-doctors to perform surgery to be sued out of existence with the first malpractice case that came along.

    Now a question for you? Should the lawful exercise of liberty be contingent on the results that flow from said exercise? For instance, should I have a right to burn a flag, even though it's disrespectful?

  • Nardz||

    "Should the lawful exercise of liberty be contingent on the results that flow from said exercise? For instance, should I have a right to burn a flag, even though it's disrespectful?"

    You'll have to clarify here, the second question doesn't have anything to do with the first.

    Should the lawful exercise of liberty be contingent on the results that flow from said exercise?
    If my right to freedom of movement leads me to strike another, it's no longer lawful.
    For instance, should I have a right to burn a flag, even though it's disrespectful?
    Yes - though you should be aware there are social consequences for such displays.

    Your open borders stance is one favoring law of the jungle. If a country doesn't have borders, it's not a country and government has no jurisdiction. That being the case, what's yours is only what you can defend from any and all attempts to obtain it.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Okay, so you would limit the liberty of individuals to prohibit actions which violate the NAP. Is that a fair summary of your views? But that is not the only situation in which you wish to prohibit individual liberty, right? Are there others? If so, what are they, and what are the rationales for them?

  • Nardz||

    How does one even respond to this.
    Take some meds and come back when you can formulate a coherent thought.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Translation: Thinking in terms of abstract principles and rules is hard! I'd much rather make memes that mock the left!

  • Nardz||

    First off, one of your problems is thinking exclusively in the abstract.
    Secondly, abstract thought is not a problem for me - interpreting incoherent rambling is.
    Learn to clarify, or shut the fuck up

  • hello.||

    Preventing people with horrible diseases, or known international criminals, from freely moving, are two of the areas where I can accept limitations on free association. Because the a priori likelihood for harm to other people is very very high.

    Of course having no border controls as you routinely argue for would make it a practical impossibility to enforce any such provisions. But as long as you can get 5 dollar handies off Juanita the 9 year old Mexican behind 7-11 a little tuberculosis and terrorism is a small price to pay.

  • John||

    No one is saying they don't have a right to do this. They can serve anyone they want. The question is is this a good thing and something that should be criticized.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    One can argue for the right even though one - me - doesn't think it's a particularly good idea. And it wasn't. She's put her business in a precarious position rather needlessly. On the personal side, it was rude and unproductive and pure virtue signaling for her staff, who sound as depicted as textbook snowflakes.

    On the other hand, the Vichy used to serve the Nazis artisanal chicken wings and look what happened to them after the Allied kicked the Krauts out. No one wants to be taken to the town square and publicly shamed with a mandatory crew cut when Alec Baldwin kicks Trump out of the White House.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    I don't think anyone who comments here is interested in adding anything productive to this conversation. Or any other conversation.

  • Azathoth!!||

    they themselves, for the most part, completely reject freedom of association between employer and employee, if those two parties don't have the correct permissions from the state.

    You're loving this phrase.

    You think you're jabbing at libertarians who don't believe In removing the borders of the Western nations to everyone else in the world(let's be honest, okay?--you all only care about people wanting to migrate to the west, everyone else can do whatever fucked up thing they want at THEIR borders and that's just fine) by invoking the 'why can't I employ blah blah blah.

    Well, no one cares if you hire some Mexicans or South Americans or whatever to serve you, really. But that's not what you want. You want everyone to just let flocks of them in, to wander aimlessly, until you need your grass cut or your pool cleaned or your house scrubbed. You want a supply of non-citizens to underpay and abuse.

    It's one thing to hire foreign nationals using a system similar to the labor system the rest of us are forced to use--and quite another to have a group of people afraid of authorities, outside the law, who must rely on your good will to survive.

    But you keep lying to yourself, slaver.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I nominate Azathoth!! for chapter president of Libertarians For Bigoted, Authoritarian, Big-Government Immigration Policies And Practices.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    If you would argue against my actual positions and not strawmen, we might get somewhere.

    I believe that generally, people should be free to associate with whomever they choose, without hindrance from the state. This is a general principle, not limited to association or movement in any particular direction across any border.

    Well, no one cares if you hire some Mexicans or South Americans or whatever to serve you, really.

    That's plainly not true. There's an awful lot of Trumpists who care very much whether the Mexicans that I hire for some task have the correct documents from the state.

    You want a supply of non-citizens to underpay and abuse.

    I do? Huh. That's news to me. Believe it or not, I don't actually hire undocumented Mexicans to cut my grass or anything of the sort. I certainly don't want to see anyone abused. Everyone should be treated with a certain modicum of dignity and humanity. That includes undocumented migrants.

    And I find all these crocodile tears about the plight of these poor undocumented migrants coming from the restrictionist right to be insulting, frankly. If the border restrictionists got their way, all of these migrants would be suffering under even worse conditions back in their 'shithole' countries with little to no chance of migrating here at all. So spare me your faux concern about their well being. You don't mind at all if they are abused; you just want to see them abused over there.

  • MarkLastname||

    So, you're point is: "but, but, but what about immigration!!?" Apparently two wrongs do make a right.

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

    Well, now we have a response to the wheedling libertarian question, "Don't you think adults are competent to manage their own lives?".

    No. Obviously they aren't. At all.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    So who manages yours?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    What gender does Sanders identify as?

  • higgyb||

    Class act.

  • higgyb||

    "It's easy to imagine both left and right upping the ante with these performative acts of resistance." Example of this from the right, please.

  • Ship of Theseus||

    You're either joking or a fucking moron.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Since the right doesn't do this, it's always a good question.

  • Nardz||

    That's not an example

  • Tony||

    But isn't Maxine Waters the real problem?

    It's a fucking mazing how fast this shit works.

  • LarryWilson||

    She is the problem.

    Instead of letting individual businesses decide who they serve, she wants leftists to go into those establishments en mobbe for the purpose of exercising their righteous version of intolerance and driving business away from those establishments.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Perhaps Maxine should get kicked out of a restaurant. I bet you'll hear a different opinion from her then.

  • ThomasD||

    Dat'd be raciss.

  • Tony||

    I don't care what she said. She has no power. Trump does. How do you like his singling out a small business for criticism and god knows what else because of personal feelings?

  • Just Say'n||

    I think that's no different than when small businesses who wouldn't bake a wedding cake were bankrupted by activist groups who masquerade as defenders of civil rights (ACLU). I hope the Red Hen goes out of business. I truly do. The only way this nonsense ends is when everyone starts feeling the pain

  • $+€££@||

    Guy has a right to his feelings.

  • Rebel Scum||

    She has no power.

    She's an elected representative...

  • The Last American Hero||

    A well known senator with a big megaphone has no power?

  • LarryWilson||

    So I have to assume you only vote once every four years, and the only vote you cast is for the executive office.

    Seems legit.

  • Azathoth!!||

    How do I like Trump 'singling out a small business' because they threw a person out of the restaurant for being one of his employees?

    I like it a lot.

    I hope they go out of business.

  • Tony||

    It's a violation of the law for them to publicly rebuke them like that, you know.

  • JesseAz||

    No it isn't dumbass. You don't lose your first amendment rights when elected. God you're a fucking moron

  • MarkLastname||

    Was it illegal when Obama rebuked Fox News?

    No, because only leftists have rights, it seems.

  • Tony||

    But let's not let that get in the way of your totally libertarian butthurt about government goons' hurt feelings.

  • MarkLastname||

    She's in Congress you idiot, she has plenty of power.

    You bitch incessantly about how Republicans can't get anything done, which is precisely because people like Maxine Waters in Congress have the power to obstruct them. You seem to switch between "Trump and the GOP are omnipotent" and "lol look how impotent Trump and the GOP are" pretty regularly. Pick a lane.

  • juris imprudent||

    A Robby article with nary a "to be sure"?

  • Iheartskeet||

    See 2nd to last paragraph. He used different phrasing, but the meaning is the same.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...libertarians should defend a private property owner's right to eject a government official from the premises.

    Huh. I didn't think anyone here would think otherwise.

  • JWatts||

    That was a complete strawman argument.

  • Rebel Scum||

    And it was burned so well.

  • MasterThief||

    I'd further think that most people in the comments would argue that a property owner has the right to eject anyone from their property for any reason. We don't need to agree with the reason to think the right exists. It's the hypocrisy of this situation that is really the point. I'm not going to cry over Sanders being told to leave any more than I'll cry over a gay couple being told that someone doesn't want to make a cake that they want.

  • Eidde||

    "further polarizing society in ways that play right into Pres. Trump's hands"

    Oh, a Soave article.

  • John||

    Polarizing society is bad because Trump might benefit. Robby being a complete half-wit is unable to think of reasons why that might be bad beyond Trump.

  • Eidde||

    I'm just gently teasing him, not calling him a half-wit.

  • John||

    Just be sure to use protection Eddie. You have no idea where Robby has been.

  • $+€££@||

    Neither does Robby.

  • Eidde||

    You guys have dirty minds.

    You'd think the most innocent thing was obscene.

  • JesseAz||

    That's Mr. cocktail to you.

  • John||

    Soave is engaging in a straw man here. No one on either side has suggested that it be illegal for the Red Hen to refuse service to Huckabee on the basis of them not liking her. So, Soave's libertarian defense of them doing so is at best just a response to a strawman and begging the more important question. Of course, they can do it, the question is whether they should do it. Those questions are two entirely different things. It would seem to me that Libertarianism doesn't offer a single answer or even an answer at all to the question of should.

    To the extent Soave tries to offer an answer, his answer seems to consist of nothing more than "I like liberals and really don't like Trump, so therefore this is okay." It is bad enough that Soave thinks that is any kind of a thoughtful answer to the issue and even worse that he calls such an answer "a Libertarian" defense. No, it is a partisan defense and the result of Soave's cultural and political biases and in no way the result of any thought or underlying principles.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    It would seem to me that Libertarianism doesn't offer a single answer or even an answer at all to the question of should.

    Correct. Nor should it.

    To the extent Soave tries to offer an answer, his answer seems to consist of nothing more than "I like liberals and really don't like Trump, so therefore this is okay."

    That is you reading into Robby's response.

  • John||

    Then what is your reading? If you think it is different explain how it is. I have done my best to try and teach you how argument works. You need to show some progress here.

    Correct. Nor should it.

    Why not? There are some things that are more conducive to freedom than others. There is nothing wrong with supporting those things. If you were not a leftist and understood that just because something is good doesn't mean the government should force people to do it, you would understand that.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I don't care to try to peer into Robby's soul and attempt to divine what his true motivations are. But it's clear you are projecting your biases onto Robby's words.

    Why not?

    Because I am not in a position to decide for others how they ought to behave. They are adults, they may choose to do whatever they wish, based on their particular circumstances.

  • John||

    I don't care to try to peer into Robby's soul and attempt to divine what his true motivations are. But it's clear you are projecting your biases onto Robby's words.

    I don't either. I just know what he said. And that is what his words mean. If you think they mean something else say what and explain why.

    Because I am not in a position to decide for others how they ought to behave.

    So you are unable to make any value judgments at all? You should work on that because doing so is necessary to live at a mental level above that of an earnest 10 year old.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    At the same time, Sanders not getting dinner is in no way, shape, or form as tragic as the Trump administration's immigration policy. Liberals have every reason to wonder why they need to show Trump officials civility when Trump's behavior is so appalling.

    His words. If that isn't a rephrasing of the ends justify the means, I don't know what is.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Or to further explain to wokatarians like you and robby using words you understand: elections have consequences. That is how you change immigration policy, not by co-mingling it with every single conceivable interaction you have with someone on the other side.

    And that is precisely why the cake comparison is so wrong. In the latter case the state was compelling association and speech. In this case some petty, spiteful ppl were trying to punish someone for the actions of another.

  • Ron||

    Has anyone else noticed that so far its only been female members of Trumps kingdom that have been attacked in public. are they too scared to confront the male members?

  • The Last American Hero||

    Well, unless you count the members of congress that survived an assassination attempt, or the signs posted in Ajit Pai's neighborhood....

  • Ron||

    I didn't count the assasin's attempt because he was clearly crazy however the people we see today are run of the mill leftys going after anybody and an elected representative calling for more action instead of calm.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    A challenge to our Reason Republican friends here:

    Perhaps, instead of bitching about 'woketarians' and Robby Soave, you could come up with a general rule for how you envision freedom of association to be protected.

    For most of you, I imagine that you support the freedom of bakers to choose not to associate with gay customers if they so choose. Okay, fine.

    Also for most of you, I imagine that you do not support the freedom of employers generally to associate with employees if they lack the correct permissions from the state. Okay, fine.

    What is the general rule that harmonizes this apparent contradiction?

  • Just Say'n||

    This is one hell of straw man you are hiding behind.

  • Eidde||

    Hire whom you please, serve whom you please.

  • LarryWilson||

    And live and die in the free market according to the judgement passed by consumers on social media.

  • Eidde||

    Yeah, with instantaneous Internet reviews, a restaurant with a really bad policy can become radioactive.

  • John||

    Perhaps, instead of bitching about 'woketarians' and Robby Soave, you could come up with a general rule for how you envision freedom of association to be protected.

    Protection of freedom of association is not the issue here. They have every right to do this. The issue is whether their doing it is a good idea or something that should be criticized. The challenge you seem unable to meet is to understand the issue at hand. So, instead of making the same tiresome and irrelevant point, try figuring out why a society where everyone refused to do business with anyone whose politics they didn't like would be a really unfree and poor society.

    Are you this dishonest and unwilling to defend the larger issue or are you really so stupid you don't understand what it is?

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    Let's go with both, that's pretty clear with jeffy.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    I already answered your "challenge", which is really a whine about why we don't have fully open borders and unlimited immigration: the problem is that scumbags like you are bankrupting America with your trillions of dollars in unlimited mandated welfare programs.

    The answer is to go back to the basic policy we had a hundred years ago. Come on in, but you get NO government welfare. At all. I'll support opening up the border to all, provided that we permanently eliminate all welfare at the same time.

    What I will NOT support is opening up the border to all, with some vague empty promise to do away with the welfare at some undetermined point later on.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    the problem is that scumbags like you are bankrupting America with your trillions of dollars in unlimited mandated welfare programs.

    1. I don't support the welfare state.
    2. I am honest enough to recognize that the proportion of welfare consumed by non-citizens is a drop in the bucket compared to the proportion of welfare consumed by citizens.
    3. Opposing open borders because of the cost of welfare is, from a pure numbers point of view, not a serious argument.

    Precisely how much do you imagine immigrants consume in welfare? Because government (all of them) spend about $1 trillion per year. And that figure doesn't even include Social Security and Medicare. Most estimates that I have seen for welfare consumed by undocumented immigrants is in the ballpark of $150 billion per year, but that figure invariably includes public education, which is not normally thought of as a traditional means-tested welfare program. Welfare for illegals isn't the source of bankruptcy here.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Are you truly this stupid?

    No--don't answer, of course you are.

    We have problems now with illegal immigrants access to our various welfare systems. Now, with semi-porius' borders.

    What the fuck do you think would happen if we opened them up?

    The population of the US would be in the billions before a year passed.

    idiot.

  • wreckinball||

    I'm Ok with the Red Hen not serving Sarah. But here's where it gets tough for the libtards because they dislike Sarah's politics so of course its cool to deny here service. What if OMG a Christian baker didn't want to bake a cake for a gay couple.

    See ChemJeff you'd have to be OK with that too. God, libtards!

    You have to actually let people do stuff you don;t like without running to court to ruin their lives. Get that?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Since I'm not a "libtard" I believe it ought to be legal for bakers to refuse service to gay couples.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You have to actually let people do stuff you don;t like without running to court to ruin their lives. Get that?

    Like get prescriptions filled?

    Like get marriage licenses in Kentucky?

    Neither side should expect 'heads we win, tails you lose' to prevail over time. Religious claimants are accustomed to that snowflake-coddling treatment -- 'we can discriminate against others, but no one can discriminate against us' -- and right-wingers seem determined to expand that two-sided special privilege, but over time it should not and probably will not work for either side.

  • JesseAz||

    Jeff. The reason you are a fucking idiot is because you never mention the welfare state in your endless ejaculation of open borders. You do this because you are dishonest.

  • Eidde||

    "Taken to the logical extreme, conservatives say, the Red Hen's tactic would result in separate restaurants for conservatives and liberals, which can't possibly be healthy for democracy."

    What if a conservative happens to like granola and watercress sandwiches? What's he going to do - go to Billy Bob's MAGA BBQ after being turned down at the #resist Vegan Shack?

  • Eidde||

    I know, conservatives can just go in the back door and get a to-go lunch from the kitchen staff. No need to upset the customers in the front of the restaurant.

  • JWatts||

    As long as they don't use the bathroom or drink from the public water fountain. Of course.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    There is evidence of precisely one instance at which the Red Hen asked someone to leave, and it appears to have been based on conscience and a government official's abuse of power rather than on broad rejection of a political opinion. The owner has no record of discriminating against conservatives or anyone else. She did not want to have a mendacious, abusive government official in her restaurant.

  • Eidde||

    I hope you noted the phrase "taken to the logical extreme..."

  • Ecoli||

    Slay the old red hen and stew her up for a vengeful dinner.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Best advice I've heard all day.

  • Eidde||

    Waters' proposal is a bit more distressing than what that restaurant did.

    The restaurant decided who it wanted to serve or not serve.

    Waters wants to summon mobs to harass Trump administration people. Which would be one thing if these were mobs of peaceful picketers, but seriously, how likely is it that this would be what would happen?

  • Eidde||

    She just wants enough deniability so that if there's any mob violence (as there tend to be with #resist-type mobs), she'll be able to make a pro forma statement distancing herself from the mob action (while noting that Trump is a fascist).

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    If someone started a group to harass Waters for being a useless idiot, she be screaming "lynch mob!" within 5 minutes.

  • The Metonymy||

    Or even better...

    >leftist attacks Trump administration official
    >Trump administration official blows leftist's head off on TV
    >Trump issues pardon and Presidential Medal of Freedom to administration official

  • The Metonymy||

    I'm sure confrontimg Maxine Waters with horsewhips and nooses will fulfill that opression fetish she diddles herself to sleep with every night.

  • Ecoli||

    Maybe restaurants owned by Democrats should have separate water fountains and seating areas for lessers? Ya know, just like the old days.

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

    "Taken to the logical extreme, conservatives say, the Red Hen's tactic would result in separate restaurants for conservatives and liberals, which can't possibly be healthy for democracy."

    Actually, being able to dine without having to deal with whinny liberals sounds like a great idea.

    And fuck democracy, too, while we're at it.

  • Longtobefree||

    Damn right! I'm sticking with a republic.

  • $+€££@||

    This looks like a business opportunity to me, pitting diners against each other while they eat, I think I have something here. Provide separate accommodations, segregation, sell it like it's a gimmick.

  • Just Say'n||

    I think this article would receive nothing more than a shrug if it wasn't for this publications past support for pro-state 'Libertarian' Party nominee Gary Johnson and their effort to support Bill Weld who is even worse than Johnson.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

  • John||

    Red Hen owner apparently followed Sanders to another restaurant and harassed her there.

    http://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2.....tchywidget

    If this is true, and it appears to be, then there is no defending the Red Hen owner. Harassment is a violation of the NAP. And while he has a right not to associate with Sanders, she has a right to peacefully leave his property without him following her and harassing her.

    Unsurprisingly, Robby is unaware of this. And even when he becomes aware of it, I doubt he will write an update to this story or change his publically stated defense of the owner.

  • Longtobefree||

    Exactly what makes you think Robby is not aware of this?

  • John||

    Nothing. I am just being polite and giving him the benefit of a doubt he unlikely deserves.

  • IceTrey||

    The immigration policy is Bill Clinton's and it's the law so he has to enforce it.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    There's no point arguing against something that better people than you want to happen, Robbo.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    "For these members of his cabinet who remain and try to defend him they're not going to be able to go to a restaurant, they're not going to be able to stop at a gas station, they're not going to be able to shop at a department store, the people are going to turn on them, they're going to protest, they're going to absolutely harass them…"

    *Waters seems to be encouraging people to form angry mobs to harass Trump officials"

    Huh? Really?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    perhaps if Sanders had ordered a decorated cake this would have turned out entirely differently.

  • Longtobefree||

    Any questions about why liberals want gun control?
    Any questions about why liberals hire armed guards?
    Welcome to the revolution.

  • wreckinball||

    Gee Robby you fucking dope you left one thing out about the Sarah vs the gay couple comparison. Sarah is not taking the Red Hen to court to try and ruin their business

  • josh||

    "But Sanders wasn't forced from the Red Hen by an angry mob"

    Depends on your perspective, I guess.

    Putting aside the legal rights of an owner to refuse service, this is just really stupid, and is getting out of hand. If you don't think there's a mob now, then treat this like it's nothing and wait five minutes.

    The owner presented this as some kind of moral stand, but it was nothing virtue signaling, and as someone trying to be a moral person, I resent people hijacking that reasoning to justify being morally selective.

  • wreckinball||

    Listen at some time folks a group of deplorables will try and speak or exist or possibly even God help us go out to eat and will actually defend themselves against the f-ing lynch mod and it will turn out very very bad.

    The 'woke" folks will be broke or maybe worse.

  • ||

    Hey Robby, immigration has been a tragedy ever since coming from south of the border.

    That "we are a nation of immigrants" is absolutely correct, even when the Left says it. But what the Left doesn't get, because they're simply stupid, is those immigrants came legally through Ellis Island during and after WWII, and received nothing more from the government than a welcoming handshake and best wishes. It was sink or swim.

    And very few of them sank. It has all the earmarks of a successful effort, unlike today, when most illegal immigrants don't even know how to swim. And that pleases the Left. They see their days are numbered with black voters, and rather than send them to the back of the bus prefer now to throw them under the bus.

    A bus that, one hardly needs to mention, will be full of future brown voters.

  • MonitorsMost||

    "A Libertarian Defense of the Red Hen's Right to Refuse Sarah Huckabee Sanders" This type of headline is usually used when you're taking a devil's advocate position. Doesn't really work here. This is just the standard libertarian position.

    And the correct one. From an economic perspective it's usually unwise to boot patrons based on race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, politics, or any other characteristic that invokes tribalism. Republicans wear sneakers too and the increased patronage you get from team blue rarely makes up for the lack of patronage from team red. But, we shouldn't be pushing wise economics (or social policy) on private people's affairs.

  • Agnes||

    It's funny how the left thinks the right is fascist - but what do you call a country whose people are are coerced, attacked and intimidated into voting for only one, 'right' way?

    The fact that people literally think Trump is the devil and cannot live their lives, work or enjoy life without hyperventilating is hands down, the most disturbing part of his whole presidency. Quite frankly, I'm not sure if life is going to be better after it's over with and people shut up, or we should be most disturbed when it's quiet.

    As to the restaurant, what good does being divisive in an already turbulent time do? Did denying a meal to a woman who you vehemently disagree with, who was coming to just eat, do any good? Aside from making you Chrissy Teigan's hero, what did this prove? That you hate Trump and all associated with him? That you protest? Join the goddamn club of everyone vs Trump. How does the left expect to swing voters to their side when their party's only stance is invoking violence and hatred to those who aren't on their side?

  • TheOldMan||

    Do any of you realize that the policy of separating minors from parents when parents are detained for illegal immigration began around 1997 with the Flores vs Reno decision? Do any of you realize that this was going on during the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations?

  • Socialmisfit||

    This is NOT a good libertarian viewpoint. This is a twisted bit of mental gymnastics that fits in the same hard left camp of Trump Derangement Syndrome that we see boiling at CNN and Time Mag.

    There is little in common with the baker as a wedding cake is a piece of art with symbolism. And there are long-standing established religious moral positions over gay marriage.

    This refusal to provide a routine service to someone because you don't agree with their political views which are a reflection of their morality and which differences are the ACTUAL functional purpose for encouraging and welcoming diversity, is the fundamental act of discrimination that a libertarian mind should reject.

    What if the customer had been a white member of Antifa? I suspect that Reason would keep its mouth shut over that media storm over fear of the mob attacking it too.

  • Robert Arvanitis||

    There is no need to defend the right of association.
    The problems is that the statists have violated that right with an endless series of special pleadings.
    One might have made a plausible defense in 1964 for an imposition. It was the power of the state (racist southern democrats) that imposed Jim Crow, so it required the power of the state (Eisenhower in 1957; troops to Alabama) to extirpate that evil. Now, three generations later, the plausible defense has expired and we demand an untrammeled right of association.
    Instead, the violations have metastasized to suit the dirigiste politics of division and tribalism.
    Now the contradictions grow intolerable. Reverse racism against Asians. So-called 'intersectionality" Does a lesbian black woman outweigh a trans-Muslim?
    The special pleadsings must end.

  • The gouch||

    Me I would've stood my ground. But Sanders had the style and grace to leave without incident.. As for the others,, Like being spiton,,,,, or having those "LUNATICS" on my front yard,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, I promise you there would be hell to pay.. 1st,, the ASSHOLE that spit on the woman in florida,, He would have been arrested for transmitting a STD!! And those that were on the yard of the sec,,,,,,,,,, I would've called 911,,,,,,,,,,,,,, !!"SHOTS FIRED"!!

  • marshaul||

    So, another's private property is "your ground", now?

    When did the so-called right become so collectivist - dare I say, communist? Oh yeah, when they elected a president on entirely collectivist grounds.

    Y'all are no different from the progressive left. You should move to California or something.

  • ||

    First Amendment is First Amendment for everybody — something that our President doesn't seem to understand.

    This is especially ironic in light of the Recent Supreme Court decision on MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD., ET AL. v.
    COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION ET AL.

  • skunkman||

    While the "Libertarian" defense is debatable, here is what isn't: the owner of this restaurant is a simply a bad person.
    I live in CA and can't stand our Governor. I think most of what he has done is terrible. There is not one chance that I would throw Mr. Brown or anyone in his administration out of my place of business. Why? Because I'm a decent human being.

    The restaurant owner is not better, and probably worse, that every member of Trump's team. The sad part is that she is not an outlier on the progressive left. I am far from a right winger and I would say that I disagree with the far right on most things. I disagree with far left progressives too, but they ar sure much easier to dislike.

  • Tony||

    Trump's followers and most of the people here think private businesses should be able to throw people out simply for being gay (or black probably).

  • MasterThief||

    Or of a different political or religious tribe. Any reason, really. It's called freedom of association. It might come as a shock, but there are places that refuse to offer goods or services to straight white christian men. The odd part is that despite these situations occurring, I don't hear anything in the media about legal suits being filed based on these interactions

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    Clearly, freedom in democracy means being able to support politicians and vote while still taking advantage of public accommodation laws.

    What if everyone decided to discriminate against Trump supporters? What would they do then? Die? Starve? Go live in the ghettos? It would be a human rights violation, just like Jim Crow.

    And, what if the Trump supporter refuses to leave, and they have to call the cops to throw them out? Why, that's using tax dollars to enforce someones political bigotry. That means the only we we can settle it is public accommodation laws.

    And since Trump won the election, that means it's only OK to throw Hillary supporters out of restaurants. QED.

  • perlchpr||

    Yeah, and most of the people here probably think that heroin should be legal, too. Which does not in any way imply that they also think that heroin is actually good.

    Much like I don't patronize businesses that put up "No Concealed Carry" or "No Firearms Allowed" signs, I wouldn't patronize one which put up "No Blacks" or "No Gays" either. Which doesn't mean that I don't think that those businesses shouldn't have the legal right to tailor their customer base any way they see fit.

  • Tony||

    You'd just think that if libertarians would appreciate the expulsion of anyone from a restaurant, it would be a government goon. I missed all this nuance during the gay marriage discussions, where the asshole shop owners could hardly have found more direct and deliberate defenses of their actions.

  • Brian||

    It's more polite to refuse to bake a cake, then it is to throw a tantrum and kick someone out of the store.

    There is a nuance to manners.

    I don't remember any "he threw me out of the cake store!" stories.

    They were more like "I want to make him bake me a cake and he won't!" stories.

    It's really an exercise for the reader to see who's being the most rude. I tend to look down on tantrums.

  • Tony||

    Bigotry is the worst form of rudeness.

  • MarkLastname||

    You already can throw people out of your house for those reasons. Do you want to make that illegal? If not, shut up and go find some principles.

  • marshaul||

    There is not one chance that I would throw Mr. Brown or anyone in his administration out of my place of business. Why? Because I'm a decent human being.

    Way to contradict yourself. No decent human being would willingly associate with a politician.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    There shouldn't be any doubt that the proprietor of the "Red Hen" should reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, just like any private concern 50 years ago. They all run the risk of alienating a sizeable segment of their customers, especially now, but it's their hill to die on if they choose to. No one should be forced to march in lock step with people they have no trust or respect for.

  • EZepp||

    You have the inalienable right to bad manners. The question is whether you should exercise that right.

  • XM||

    The defense of this policy is advocacy of a more pure libertarian society. Which cannot exist (right or wrong), thanks to the Civil Right Act.

    If a Trump admin official sued a restaurant for kicking them out, they would probably prevail at court. Even if the state's accommodation law doesn't specifically protect political ideology, the courts will likely rule that kicking out your political opponents is a violation of the constitution. "You can exclude people over political differences" may effectively undo protections set in place for race and gender.

    If any of you were asked to exit a restaurant because you voted for Ron Paul, would you do nothing? Nah. I would sue the living crap out of the establishment. The court cost alone would bankrupt them, and that's already a win. This is textbook example of political persecution, and not functionally different from a Taxi driver refusing to drive me to a polling place because I'm "right wing."

    Now if the libs wanted freedom of association to be more absolute, I would be down with that. If they ain't down with that, then I have no issues using their own rules against them, especially when they're keen on breaking them to suit their own purposes.

  • Tony||

    You people are too ridiculous for words.

  • XM||

    But you always try.

  • MarkLastname||

    Or maybe you're just too much of a moron to use them to articulate your thoughts.

  • Ed Haines||

    I agree that privately owned businesses should be able to refuse service to persons with whom they do not wish to do business. However, that cannot be done in a "Willy nilly" manner. If a business does not wish to serve specific categories of customer, they must post that policy prominently at the entry to the business. Thus, if you do not wish to sell to gay citizens, state so prominently on your establishment. If you do not wish to serve employees of the federal administration, state so prominently. Failure to so inform the public of your bigotry (sorry, policy) should mean that you cannot decide after the person or persons have begun negotiation for service.
    I suspect that few businesses, whatever their devoutly held belief, will wish to inform the public of their bigotry. In any event, I would like very much to know who they are so that I can avoid them.

  • marshaul||

    "However, that cannot be done in a "Willy nilly" manner."

    Why?

    As I'm sure you're aware, this is a libertarian site. To support the above claim in this context requires you to demonstrate how "doing it in a willy-nilly manner" violates the NAP, while posting a sign does not.

    I'll cut to the chase: I can trespass any person, at any time, and for any reason, from my property. Politicians (and those who work for politicians) especially deserve to be kicked out, but only after wasting the time to drive to my business. Why? The same reason that all of government is based on: FYTW.

  • Lawn Darts||

    "happily informing his voters that liberals won't even let them go shopping or fill up their gas tanks without shrieking at them. Trump likes to capitalize on his base's fears; "

    I'm hear to tell Robby that they aren't necessarily "fears". They are actuaities. I got fed up with San Francisco after being Actually shrieked at; once in a grocery store for wearing the wrong shirt (from a gun shop) and once for gardening wrong in front of my house. The woman who accosted me for having a "knife" that could endanger her child (otherwise known as pruning shears) demanded an appology from me too. When I quietly advised her to go fuck herself, she said she was going to call the police. I'm not making this up.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    There's nothing wrong with the Bay Area that a tactical nuke wouldn't fix right away.

  • Echospinner||

    I like Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

    She has the worst job in the country. She gets up there and does it anyway. She must know that 90% of what she is saying is total crap but she pulls it off somehow.

  • ||

    We have extreme oppression by authorities of all parties but the degree is not important from a political philosophy standpoint. The day the Constitution was adopted, the principle of rights was denied if taxation and eminent domain are practiced as "the law of the land". Few understood that. So we regressed to less freedom than under the king. Progressives cheer it. Conservatives cheer it. Libertarians lament it. As long as the first two groups fight each other (politically) it "appears" as if they are opposites. They aren't. They are two versions of authoritarianism, of zero rights, of an unstable, unsustainable politicized society. Meanwhile, the populace is exploited while distracted by irrelevant issues.

    Would open street violence be better? Would it spark debate? No, it is the opposite. It would confuse and polarize the victims, who should be uniting against the Demopublicans, the authoritarians. The govt. has the MSM helping to polarize and confuse by ignoring the fundamental issues, the political paradigm that assumes violence is moral and/or necessary. That paradigm is why the majority grant a moral exemption and a complete monopoly on violence to authorities. And boy do they use it to expand their political power and bleed the populace dry.

    Not until this authoritarian paradigm is identified, questioned, debated, and rejected in favor of a new paradigm of reason, voluntaryism, will the social unrest end and rights be recognized.

  • jomo||

    Large portions of this comment section read more like Breitbart than Reason.
    I'm no fan of Maxine and I do not want angry mobs tossing Trumpies out of restaurants. But to pretend that this is some sign of "fascism" is just so...Breitbarty.

    The alt right has literally called for boycotts of everything from Starbucks to the NFL. They have vociferously defended the right of Nazis to openly call for literal genocise of brown people and Jews. They are constantly threatening Civil War II over everything from starting a discussion over gun laws to the suggestion that maybe the President shouldn't run the WH likes shady family business. They want the the "right" to throw people out of businesses, and out of America itself, for being gay or Muslim or whatever. And to top it all off they claim "persecution" when saddled with the burden of proof after asserting that all their policies are justified and and supported by their unprovable sky god.

    One little taste of their own policies (excluding people based on their beliefs) and they all freak out and once again claim that this is "the fascist left 'forcing' them" into the Civil War that they do desperately hope for every day with their don't tread on me flags and tactical vests and cold dead hands t-shirts.

    Pig-lease. I'd love to see all these conservatarians twist themselves in knots when someone uses their reasoning against them and opens a " we only serve Muslims" gun store.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    seems you buy your tinfoil hats at the same place jeffy does......

  • jomo||

    Do you have anything to add other than ad hominem?

  • The Metonymy||

    He don't but I do.

    Fuck off, slaver.

  • jomo||

    Nice. +1 for complete lack of response to any of the points raised. You'd do very well as an editor at Breitbart.

  • JFDeplorable||

    "At the same time, Sanders not getting dinner is in no way, shape, or form as tragic as the Trump administration's immigration policy."

    Ahem, Trumps immigration policy is the same as Obama's immigration policy, which was the same as G W Bush's immigration policy. Maxine Waters et al didn't have any issues with Obama's enforcement, including those much-touted "cages."

    If leftists are so doggone concerned about "the children," instead of harassing Trump administration officials, why not go south of the border and harass the drug cartel leaders and corrupt federales who have made life in Mexico so horrific that mothers willingly give their kids to a stranger and allow them to travel north to cross into the country illegally.

    As for the Red Hen, owners are Meryl Streep's cousin and a convicted pedophile out on parole. Let the leftists enjoy their meals in the company of their peers. And bring the children.

  • jomo||

    We really need an edit button. Sorry for the obvious typos.

  • Nuwanda||

    Ooh, I thought, Reason's really blown the lid off the war on freedom of association, breaking new ground, insightful commentary, but no:

    At the same time, Sanders not getting dinner is in no way, shape, or form as tragic as the Trump administration's immigration policy. Liberals have every reason to wonder why they need to show Trump officials civility when Trump's behavior is so appalling. Turning away Sanders is thus every restaurant owner's right.

    Just another excuse to flatter to deceive while grinding the same old axe. Sure, Red Hen has the right of refusal, and sure, Yelp reviewers can have at it, but wink-wink, Sanders really deserved it.

    Put this piece in the can for next year's SoCal awards.

  • BDR||

    This went beyond choosing who to serve in a private establishment. According to Mike Huckabee:

    "Once Sarah and her family left — and, of course, Sarah was asked to please vacate — Sarah and her husband just went home," he said. "They had sort of had enough."

    But the rest of her family went across the street to another restaurant, he explained, and that's when things got even more absurd.

    "The owner of the Red Hen —because nobody's told this — then followed them across the street, called people and organized a protest, yelling and screaming at them from outside the restaurant and creating this scene," said Huckabee. One of Sanders' in-laws, whom he described as "very liberal," walked out and said, "Look, I don't like Trump, I'm not a supporter, I'm a far — considered liberal — but you guys are embarrassing me and you're not helping the cause."

    Nevertheless, the mob yelled and screamed even though Sanders was no longer there because, apparently, having even a tangential relationship to the Trump administration means you're not fit to be out and about in polite society and you're no longer to be afforded public accommodations.

    REASON refuses to acknowledge the asymmetrical civility warfare that is underway. Organizing mobs to pursue your opponents is OK? DHS Secretary jeered by a mob while she tried to eat dinner. Libertarians also OK with that? This will escalate and at some point someone threatened will defend themselves with tragic consequences.

  • Nuwanda||

    Pitchforks and flaming torches on the main street? Salem circa 1695 comes to mind.

    The owner of the Red Hen is the leader of the local business association, I think I heard it reported. You don't have to be too cynical to see how this whole approach was worked out ahead of time among those with anti-Trump sympathies. Up until this point there hadn't really been an issue you could whip to such a high emotional peak, and it would have looked just a little too partisan to start throwing out Trump officials.

    But now? Funny how the outrage seems kind of prepacked and ready for delivery. Good to see Reason doing its bit, perhaps sharpening the pitchforks or some other small but useful form of idiotry.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    If true, that bitch needs a good, swift kick in the cunt (figuratively speaking) as this type of assholery should have consequences.

  • ||

    Seems a fine line between refusing someone for "I'd like to eat here" (especially after being seated and ordered?), versus 'I want you to special order a product (cake) that is against your business (personal beliefs) policy'. So, want a cake off the shelf, there is is. Want a meal off the menu, there it is. Want a special order? I'll make a business decision on that.

    Is freedom to order something available to everyone a 'right'. Is freedom to reject being forced to produce something you don't agree with a right? That seems like a business choice.

    Should Amazon be able to reject a request for a tee shirt that says "F*#K Bezos" embossed on it. Yep. Should they be able to refuse you to buy a tee shirt because your a... I don't think so. Isn't refusal for base service, in a service business, back to "no coloreds served here"?

    But if nothing else, Sanders did the right thing - walk away graciously and not call the media, police and your lawyer.

  • marshaul||

    Robby, the progressive left is anything but "liberal", and I expect better from a libertarian publication than to concede this moral high ground to the illiberal left.

  • Widhalm19||

    Good comment and right on target. Leftists are not Libertarians, they are cultural Marxists and collectivists.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    To be sure, "Leftists say that Trump is a fascist—the purposeful separation of immigrant families and mistreatment of children offers better evidence of this than anything we've seen previously from this administration—and Sanders is complicit in fascism. "

    It's been going on for decades, Hair-Boy.

    Clinton/Bush/Obama must be fascists as well.

  • JuanQPublic||

    The Sanders/Red Hen fiasco encapsulates so much about the current state of discourse that it's actually too much to parse in one sitting. One thing remains clear: we're moving in a more primitive direction socially and politically. One thing also remains clear: Trump is certainly not the first authoritarian president in the last 20 years.

    Americans are conditioned to a "nicer, gentler" authoritarianism, those of both major political parties, and not the crude, loud and incoherent authoritarianism of Trump. Americans are used to authoritarianism wrapped in benign and noble language. Horrendously and irrationally oppressive laws are passed routinely in the 21st century, seriously ramping up in the 1980s. In this sense, "civility" is a veneer, and it's easy to see why this sort of superficial "civility" is attacked, for good reason. Because under the veneer lies things like droning civilians, supporting awful regimes, and incarcerating the mentally ill.

    That has something to do with the current state.

  • aajax||

    Agree, except for this quibble. Sanders' party had already started to receive service, which creates a reasonable expectation that they will be able to finish their meal.

  • DarrenM||

    Hitler's Brownshirts and Mao's Red Guard were really just concerned citizens after all.

  • adopte||

    help me out here :for Starbucks to ask 2 men to leave -oups 2 black men-it is yucky N word I mean Nazi behavior.
    for the redhen to serve people food and THEN ask them to leave ...it is their legal right ?
    someone explain in plain english PLEASE ?

  • Praveen R.||

    I disagree. I have no respect for Sarah Sanders , but what the restaurant did gives racists and other bigoted people a creative excuse to bar gays and minorities from their restaurant. Let's take someone who does not like the BLM movement for purely racists reasons(someone who might support armed insurrection against an overreaching government agent but doesnt support BLM because they feel like cops should do whatever they like in the name of law and order). This person can allow a David Clarke to dine and say "see we allow some blacks here" and then say they didnt like the politics of BLM but in reality it is just an excuse for them to bar most blacks who might be sympathetic to BLM. They can figure out what ideologies to use as an excuse to bar most people from a race.

  • vek||

    So? In a free world people would be free to just have a "No Blacks Served Here" sign. I would imagine blacks would be glad to know whoever owned that place was racist, as would other non blacks who were against racism.

    There is no reason people shouldn't be LEGALLY allowed to ban whoever they want. Whether or not it is a nice thing as far as civility is concerned or whatever is another question entirely.

  • Widhalm19||

    Is this Reason.com or Progressive.com? This Leftist diatribe has no business in a Libertarian publication.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    How can someone contend that a pharmacist should be able to defy an employer, disregard professional obligations, and refuse to fill a prescription for a customer, yet object when a restaurateur asks a customer -- a government official -- to leave?

    How can someone contend that a baker is entitled to refuse service to a customer but fault a restaurateur for refusing service to a customer?

    Other than the viewpoint-discriminatory authoritarianism and the embrace of bigotry, I mean.

  • vek||

    Well Rev., I don't think anybody is saying any of that. I think people should be ALLOWED to do whatever they want. BUT that doesn't mean I personally have to like it. That's what being libertarian is all about, allowing things you don't like to be legal because of the principle. I stick to it in 98% of cases, only going on pragmatism on a couple issues where I think the downsides are too great to ignore.

    So I support this business owners legal right to kick her out, AND I also think she's a stupid twat for doing it. There's nothing logically inconsistent about that at all.

  • ThomasD||

    defy an employer, disregard professional obligations,

    Except that AZ pharmacists didn't do either of those things.

  • markm23||

    An employee is free to refuse to do his job - but shouldn't expect to keep that job.

    And no one is claiming that the restaurateur cannot legally refuse service to Sanders - but why is the baker then required to bake a custom-made cake for a customer? That's just bigotry in the opposite direction.

    And finally, if enough businesses refused service to government officials to become a problem for them, Congress would rush to make that illegal - Constitutional or not!

  • vek||

    Maybe if things are still super tense when I move to Trump Country in a couple years I should open a business and throw up a "No Progressives Or Dogs Allowed" sign!*


    * This is actually a play on signs that were common in Nazi Germany with Jews replacing Progressives! Throwing in the "Or Dogs" part really takes it up a notch! Gotta hand it to them Nazis, they sure knew how to discriminate the fuck out of people! LOL

  • hello.||

    But Sanders wasn't forced from the Red Hen by an angry mob

    Actually you lying sack of shit she was badgered by the owner and a mob after she left.

  • CHarris360||

    "...we shouldn't force a restaurant owner to serve a government official involved in policies the owner believes are immoral."

    By the same token (ha), I guess we shouldn't force a restaurant owner to serve a person of color if they believe that colored persons are immoral (as some people do). So we're back to the good old days of Jim Crow.

  • CHarris360||

    ...and liberal restaurant owners can start refusing service to anyone that they know is against abortion and conservative restaurant owners can do the inverse. This "libertarian" defense is just plain stupid!

  • Robert Crim||

    Yet another "libertarian" defense of a claimed absolute nature of property. The problem is that such an understanding of "property" hasn't existed in the United States for more than a hundred years.

    The bottom line here is that the Red Hen is in business to serve food to walk-in customers armed with green money. Had Mrs. Sanders been refused service for being Caucasian or female, the civil-rights violation would have been manifest. Instead, she is refused service for being employed by The Devil, in consort with a conspiracy in restraint of trade being organized by Maxine Waters.

    The comparison with Masterpiece Cake is inapposite. It is the difference between requiring the baker to sell a cake off the shelf to anyone versus obliging him to participate in a fantasy wedding.

    That distinction is clear.

    It is not clear that anyone who works for the Executive in Washington believes we should piss on Mexicans. At the same time, ANYONE who enters the country illegally can be arrested because that's a crime.

    So, is our Little Red Hen now to have a property right to engage in obstruction of justice?

    There are limits in any society to how private property can be used. What the author advocates for here is not private property but sovereign property, and that's something that can lodge only in the Sovereign.

    Needless to say, Little Red Hen is not that.

  • vek||

    You're incorrect my friend... Until the 1960s the USA had virtually absolute Freedom Of Association. You could have a sign that said "No blacks, no hippies, and no fat chicks" and that was totally fine and legal. Which is as it should be.

    YES, all property in the USA does have some limitations on it... But libertarians advocate for fewer, not more, limitations.

    As always brought up imagine if a Nazi went into a Jewish place. Or a radical Muslim wearing a "Osama Did Nothing Wrong" shirt. The owner SHOULD be able to tell them to GTFO. Technically right now they can... But what about a Muslim wearing a "Fags Must Die, The Koran Says So" shirt in a place with gay employees? That's mixing religion with "politics." That could arguably be illegal.

    The fact is that it's a slippery slope. Which is why for something as simple as this, there's no reason to not just allow the owner to follow their conscience, right or wrong. That's on the legal side mind you. There's nothing wrong with people thinking the owner is a total TOOL for the actions they take either.

  • Priscilla King||

    Private business has right to refuse service to anyone...I've been saying this for years...any time owner wants to write off entire investment & lose friends.

    A few years ago a jerk ordered me out of a store because he'd bought out the position the owner had tentatively offered to me. (That is, she needed help; I was willing to keep the store for the space; he bought in as a partner, though not actually willing to keep store open...) Motive: envy, resentment, also prejudice against a "conservative Christian" & fundamental misogynist bigotry--little did he know I'm probably the most "gay"-friendly "conservative Christian" in our town.

    So? I left. And I told people why. And I blogged about why.

    Not six months later, the store shut down as the jerk had a very conspicuous public mental breakdown.

    I'm still here. He's still soooo not.

    Just sayin'.

  • Severely Ltd||

    Yes, a telling example. If Public Accommodation isn't overturned by the SCOTUS, libertarianism will never gain a real foothold in this country. The Civil Rights cover allowed the Left to institute public policy exactly contrary to individual rights in the guise of compassion.

  • ChattaJim||

    Why supposed learned pundits keep referring to the zero tolerance law as "Trump's policy" is beyond me. The Obama administration used the same law, but somehow it is only President Trump who is the bad guy. If you don't recognize this fact, you should keep your opinions to yourself. It is up to Congress to change this law. And to refer to Ms. Sanders as a fascist is so incredibly obtuse. It further reduces the author to irrelevancy. Reason.com is better than this drivel.

  • SoSueMe001||

    "...which can't possibly be healthy for democracy..." WaPo or the New Yawk Times, I understand but I really expect better from Reason.com....this is a Constitutional Republic..those democracies are in Europe.

  • Severely Ltd||

    Public Accommodation applied to individuals is wrong, and by extension, to business. It was bad law in the early sixties too. You don't trample rights in a stampede to correct a problem. Business would have followed government-run institutions and many, such as bus lines, were waiting for the change for their self-interest. They were just waiting on the social imprimatur.

    I remember when Rand Paul was asked about this and caved; Bummer. The one public figure that fearlessly points out the wrongness of our Public Accommodation law is Ben Shapiro. That man needs to be president.

  • BILKER||

    i agree that business owners must have the right to not serve customers. However as was reported several places that the gay perverts working at the store followed her to the next establishment and protested there also. If true that is harassment plain and simple. If true then the gay perverts from the store should be arrested and prosecuted for inciting to riot or , at least, an appropriate charge. As to the attacks on the store on yelp that is way better than the gay pervert supporters damaging a business because said business does not agree with the gay perverted life style.
    BTW F*CK DENIRO, F*CK WATERS, F*CK LEE.

  • poppavein||

    But then she followed them into another restaurant and organized a protest there too.

    That obliterated any credibility she had or moral standing.

  • ||

    The hypocrisy of the left is excruciatingly apparent, it has fundamentally pushed itself into totalitarian territory.

  • Bowfish||

    "At the same time, Sanders not getting dinner is in no way, shape, or form as tragic as the Trump administration's immigration policy. Liberals have every reason to wonder why they need to show Trump officials civility when Trump's behavior is so appalling. Turning away Sanders is thus every restaurant owner's right."

    What Trump behavior is appalling? Why are you comparing the prejudiced Red Hen moment to Trump's Immigration Policy, rather than comparing the civility shown before and after to the kids of parents who used them as shields to break the law crossing the border and then lying about it on so many levels?

    Or, comparing the Red Hen moment to the non-existent episodes where anyone from the Obama administration was asked to leave a restaurant over their politics. People felt just as viscerally about him as well (that's what gave us Trump).

    The reason those migrant kids were separated from their parents is because their parents broke the law. The separation happens every day in our country to citizens.

    Antifa is peaceful? The ones getting beat up are always the ones supporting the right (See Leftists at trump rallies). Conservatives get fired from their jobs. Conservatives get doxxed. The notion that the Left is peaceful and only ostracizes prominent conservatives is bogus.

    In fact, your whole article is a misrepresentation of the facts and is more in line with the fake news we would get from MSNBC.

  • MoreFreedom||

    As a libertarian, and believing in the freedom of association, I believe anyone should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason (good or bad). The government overstepped it's bounds with the Civil Rights Act in prohibiting businesses that provide a public accommodation, from discriminating (on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin). The CRA was right to prohibit the government from doing so, but wrong to prohibit private citizens and businesses from doing so.

    With people free to discriminate, I can kick out the smelly unkempt guy without shoes, even if he's black without getting sued for racial discrimination. If I decide to just kick out blacks, I will lose their business and probably a lot more as well. Good businessmen, will make good judgements, and serve all the customers they can. The bigoted businessmen will likely go out of business for their bigotry, and pay for it. Further, I can hire the best person, without worrying about getting sued for discrimination (and I am discriminating by picking the best candidate).

    One definition of discriminate is "To make sensible decisions; judge wisely." Which should be legal, without the threat of being sued.

  • JoeB||

    Is Rico Soave serious? The unhinged violent antics of the Left are Trump's fault? Is he buffing his resume for a job at NYT or CNN? Or did the idiot forget to take his meds again?

  • ||

    You can be libertarian and not pro inmigration btw.rich countries have their job markets flooded with people willing to work for less from other countries and that is why inmigration enforcement makes sence. Otherwise i agree businesses should have freedom to do what they want.

  • LifeStrategies||

    I'm very disappointed to see that Reason Editor Robby Soave, the author, is advocating violence!

    He approvingly quotes Waters as saying "If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant...you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them."

    Why does any libertarian advocate violence just like demented left-winger Waters? She said "you push back on them" she did NOT say push back on their policies, but "on THEM." Pushing is physical and saying push on somebody is also physical - an incitement to genuine physical violence.

    Mind you, the left have spent years equating speech with violence, so for Waters to pretend that even her speech is not violence is disingenuous. Waters clearly incited actual violence and meant to do so - she's a hypocrite as well as a liar.

    And so is Robbie Soave, he pretends to be a libertarian but advocates violence on people he disagrees with. He is a hypocrite just like Waters.

  • MatthewlovesAyn||

    I take it you are now sharing space with the Huffpo. Sarah wasn't a government official is this case. She was a customer. If I saw someone coming in with a green shirt, should I be able to refuse service because I don't like green shirts? What if I saw Jesse Jackson heading in the door, or Bernie Sanders? Should I be allowed to refuse service because I hate commies? Imagine the uproar.
    I can't think of an incident where a Trump policy has broken existing law, and in many cases they are behaving exactly as Obama's minions. The only home for Libertarians is on the web. Not in the print media.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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