MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Everyone Has an Opinion About Whether Restaurants Should Serve Trump Staffers: Reason Roundup

Plus: Parsing the Westworld season-two finale and how Trump's tariffs could be bad for good cheese.

Under Trump, restaurant admissions policies are a partisan issue. The most talked-about political news to come out of last weekend has nothing to do with immigration, tariffs, or public policy of any sort. No, the president and the chattering classes have been preoccupied Sunday and this morning with a small Virginia restaurant giving White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders the boot. The owner of the Red Hen in Lexington, Va., said she is "not a huge fan of confrontation" but "this feels like the moment in our democracy when people have to make uncomfortable actions and decisions to uphold their morals."

In response, Democrats have been applauding the move and calling for more entrepreneurs to place politics above business. Rep. Maxine Waters (D–Calif.) said in a Saturday speech that more people should publicly shun Trump-administration officials, in light of their recent policies regarding immigrant children.

"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," Waters said. "The people are going to turn on them, they're going to protest, they're going to absolutely harass them until they decide that they're going to tell the president, 'No, I can't hang with you, this is wrong, this is unconscionable, and we can't keep doing this to children.'"

Meanwhile, the Trumpian right has been using the news to fuel their us-against-the-world posturing while old-school conservatives—and centrists of all stripes—wax on about civility.

"Those who are insisting that we are in a special moment justifying incivility should think for a moment how many Americans might find their own special moment," opined the Washington Post editorial board. "How hard is it to imagine, for example, people who strongly believe that abortion is murder deciding that judges or other officials who protect abortion rights should not be able to live peaceably with their families? Down that road lies a world in which only the most zealous sign up for public service."

Even the president has weighed in (with typically mature aplomb):

And of course the surface similarity between this debate and the Masterpiece Cakeshop case have drawn all sorts of heated heckling and strained comparisons. Many are pointing out that just a few weeks ago, Democrats and progressives were firmly against businesses being able to deny service to certain customers. Liberals fire back that Trump staffers aren't a protected class in the way racial and sexual minorities are. The whole business has led to some twisted rationalizations and position shifts on both sides, as Trump fans suddenly discover a dislike for business-owner discretion and progressives pretend like there's no connection between the right of association in this case versus those involving gay wedding cakes.

Basically, everyone in the mainstream is behaving about as you might expect, united at least in their commitment to make this non-issue into a national referendum. But the bottom line is that there's almost no chance things like the Sanders incident become commonplace. The vast majority of restaurant and small-business owners couldn't pick out particular Trump administration officials or Congress critters, and likely don't want and can't afford to limit their customer base to ideologically simpatico people.

Taking serious sides in the Sanders restaurant debate doesn't involve real stakes for almost anyone, though, so we can expect to see it dominating the news cycle for days to come. And when there's no more spectacle left in this circus? Bring on the billboard battles!

FREE MINDS

"Is this real?" The second season of HBO's Westworld concluded last night with a finale that has fans (including us here at Reason) divided. See Vox for a good rundown of the season finale's twists and turns, and what they might mean for season three.

Series co-creator Lisa Joy has said a little about about what we can expect next season. From The Hollywood Reporter (spoilers abound below):

As of season two's conclusion, the "real world," as it were, now has a whole new species to consider, in the form of three new inhabitants: Bernard (Jeffrey Wright), Dolores (Evan Rachel Wood) and a recently created host with the likeness of the late Charlotte Hale, played by Tessa Thompson. These three hosts escaped the confines of Westworld by the end of the season, all three of them through very different means. For Bernard and Dolores, their shared existence in this strange new land is the one thing that bonds them; philosophically, they are at odds, with Dolores still determined to gain supremacy over humanity, while Bernard intends to stand in her way. Their conflict, and their new place within the humans' world, will become a major focus in season three of Westworld, which remains without a return date.

Additionally, there's reason to suspect that season three will not only focus largely on a new setting, but also a new point in time. Season two's post-credits sequence, which centers on an apparently artificial version of the Man in Black (Ed Harris), takes places in the "far, far future," according to what Westworld co-creator and co-showrunner Lisa Joy tells The Hollywood Reporter. Joy cautions that this won't be the predominant setting for the third season, but it's a point in the timeline that she and co-creator Jonathan Nolan are very much driving toward.

FREE MARKETS

Trump's tariffs could be bad for good cheese. From The New York Times:

For domestic cheesemakers ... Trump's approach has further tilted the global playing field against American manufacturers, giving them an even steeper climb in an increasingly competitive global economy.

The dairy industry now faces substantial tariffs on products it exports as Mexico, Canada and other countries retaliate against Mr. Trump's steel and aluminum tariffs. American exporters also fear that they could lose access to Canada and Mexico if the president goes ahead with his threat to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement. And they are finding themselves at an increasing disadvantage as other countries move ahead with trade agreements that grant each other freer access to their markets while Mr. Trump further isolates the United States.

Read the whole thing here. Meanwhile, in other tariff-related news:

QUICK HITS

Photo Credit: Red Hen Lexington/Facebook

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.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Congrats, ENB.

  • Elizabeth Nolan Brown||

    thank you ;)

    How were Robby's roundups while I was gone?

  • Rich||

    Nice; but not as nice as yours. Thanks for all you do!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Hey, wait a minute. Should that be ENS now?

  • Rich||

    Not ENZ, anyway.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    ENBS+

    Just keep tacking on letters. The plus is for all her friends and supporters.

  • Eidde||

    People spend good money to get a BS in their name.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Yes, congrats. I hope you had a wonderful honeymoon. Robby was not bad, but your round ups are very comprehensive. Welcome back.

  • Eidde||

    Yes, welcome back.

  • ||

    Hello.

    The progressive left would have sided with Barabbas. 'Give us Barabbas!'

    Now they're for businesses being allowed to do as they please, eh?

    Congratulations, ENB.

  • Citizen X||

    "Bar abbas" is Aramaic for "son of the father," so there's either a translation glitch or something really weird going on with that part of the Gospels.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Son of God vs. Son of the (human) Father. Makes total sense if you don't worry if that is literally true.

  • Just Say'n||

    In Aramaic isn't God referred to as "Abba"?

  • Citizen X||

    It's been a while since i've studied it, but if i recall correctly "abba" is who Jesus cried out for on the cross.

  • Jerryskids||

    I thought he called for Peter to come here a minute.

  • Just Say'n||

    Be honest, are you a biblical scholar or something?

  • Citizen X||

    I majored in religion in college, mostly because i hadn't yet learned how to make good decisions when i was 19.

  • Just Say'n||

    That actually sounds fascinating.

  • Citizen X||

    Oh, it was, but "fascinating" and "preparatory for gainful employment" are not the same thing, it turns out.

  • Just Say'n||

    Yeah, I can imagine.

    What was the most interesting faith that you studied? I'm going to guess Zoroastrianism

  • Citizen X||

    Medieval Christian mysticism was pretty fascinating, actually, and totally alien to anything you'd ever hear in church on a Sunday morning.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    This explains your love of utterly obscure science fiction.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Truly he was the Dancing Queen of Kings.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    You're a teaser, you turn 'em on
    Leave them burning and then you're gone
    Looking out for another, anyone will do
    You're in the mood for a dance
    And when you get the chance...

  • Eidde||

    It was during the Agony in the Garden.

    http://biblehub.com/mark/14-36.htm

  • Citizen X||

    Yeah, you're right, though my greater point stands. Like i said, it's been a while.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    Not quite. While on the cross, Jesus cried out "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani!" which was an appeal to the Aramaic "Eloi", "my God". In another verse regarding prayer, Jesus said that true believers pray to God as their "Abba", which can be translated either as "Father" or "My Father".

    No comment on the peculiarity of the name Barabbas.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Almost. What he actually said was "Is it too much to ask you jerks to stop gawking and get me down?!"

  • Citizen X||

    "Abba" is less formal and more affectionate than "father" - it's really closer to "daddy," according to one of my professors.

  • ||

    /throws sour cherry jam at Citizen.

  • SIV||

    You say "best wishes" to the bride. Congratulations is for the groom.

    Best Wishes ENB.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    California senator and Democratic darling Kamala Harris said she's open to running for president in 2020.

    She thinks she can take on Oprah?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Another woman to lose to Trump. This will be epic!

  • Jerryskids||

    California senator and Democratic darling Kamala Harris said she's open to running for president in 2020.

    In other news, Chris Christie has announced he may be a little overweight, Jimmy Carter has announced he may be a little old and Abraham Lincoln has announced he may be a little dead.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    North Korea has decided to skip an annual anti-U.S. rally this year.

    AND THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE GOES TO...

  • Shirley Knott||

    Kim Jong Un of course.
    Stalin not being available.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    DENNIS RODMAN!

  • Citizen X||

    The owner of the Red Hen in Lexington, Va., said she is "not a huge fan of confrontation" but "this feels like the moment in our democracy when people have to make uncomfortable actions and decisions to uphold their morals."

    The owner of the Red Hen in Lexington, VA comes across as a pompous asshole in every single interview. That said, politicians and their hangers-on should be shunned by polite society as a matter of course, so if this embrace of free association spreads - and especially if it becomes bipartisan - i'm gonna have a hard time feeling bad about it.

  • Just Say'n||

    "Bake the cake"?

  • Longtobefree||

    A gentle and civil reminder; it was not about baking the cake.
    There had been previous cakes baked and sold.
    What was refused was artistic decoration of a cake to celebrate an event antithetical to the shop owner's religion.

  • ThomasD||

    It should also be noted that Sander's response did not include lawyering up with the intention of compelling service from an unwilling business establishment.

  • Ron||

    Yea pretty soon all business will have signs telling who they will allow and people will no longer be allowed to even talk to relatives who have different opinions. when the hatred gets this bad violence becomes the next step. its just a matter of time before someone claims to be defending themselves while throwing molotov cocktails

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    We are getting close. My conservative friends are now boycotting Netflix. This will end with total segregation.

  • damikesc||

    It also, as I've said before, indicates that she supports EVERYBODY else who eats at her restaurant. Once you say "This person is not acceptable to eat at my establishment", you're ALSO saying that everybody else there IS acceptable.

    Could be awkward for her, having to police the opinions, beliefs, and actions of all of her clientele.

  • Longtobefree||

    No worries; show a voter registration card designating the democrat party, welcome!

  • Just Say'n||

    I'm really not seeing how boycotting is anywhere comparable to shouting at people while they eat dinner in a restaurant

  • damikesc||

    Me neither. One is childish but economic. The other is just being an ass-hat. When I told the head of my states Dem Party to go fuck himself, I didn't seek him out. He came to me.

    And, as has been mentioned, eventually they will have Secret Service agents there to stifle that shit HARD.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    Sorry to say, but we are already there.

    Proggie fanatics have already shot up a GOP baseball team, a C&W concert full of Trump supporters, violently shut down moderately conservative speakers, etc.

    You're only pretending that violence is in the next stage.

  • Ron||

    True the violence has already been started along with the fires at certain speakers in California

  • CDRSchafer||

    Lemme know if a progressive Marxist owns a business so I can stay away. Helpful information.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Mexico's Next President Boldly Declares That Immigration To The United States Is A "Human Right"

    It's time for Trump to use his trump card on immigration
    The president's power to shut down all forms of immigration is unquestionable

    Let's take a look at the language of the statute granting the president at-will plenary authority to shut down even legal immigration:

    Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Did he just call his own country a shithole?

    Mexican presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) called for mass immigration to the United States during a speech Tuesday declaring it a "human right we will defend" for all North Americans.

    "And soon, very soon — after the victory of our movement — we will defend all the migrants in the American continent and all the migrants in the world," Obrador said, adding that immigrants "must leave their towns and find a life in the United States."

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Do you even know what a migrant is, Longtorso?

  • damikesc||

    I'll buy this when his country is kinder to immigrants from THEIR South. Their rights are notoriously limited.

  • Jerryskids||

    "And soon, very soon — after the victory of our movement — we will defend all the migrants in the American continent and all the migrants in the world," Obrador said, adding that immigrants "must leave their towns and find a life in the United States."

    Are those the very words he used? Because, you know, there are two Estados Unidos on the North American continent. He could have been calling for immigrants to return home.

  • damikesc||

    At this point, when he wins, the Mexican President-to-be's comments indicate a plan for invasion. Which means his comments are clearly as threat to national security.

    Time to shut down immigration from Mexico completely. Cut off all remittances as well, or at least tax them at an absurdly high rate, to help crash the Mexican economy.

    This is not a game they can hope to win.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    I'm starting to think the left wants an anti-immigrant backlash. Take your average white middle class socialist 20 something. Ze has massively invested zes time and energy on "Trump is Hitler!!". Nonstop. Which is easier for that white kid, climbing down and admitting ze was wrong, or generating a backlash against people who don't look like zem, and who ze doesn't deal with on any basis but those of ze's choosing?

    Trump must be Hitler, and they will push until they get what they need. Other people, including Hispanics, are just abstractions anyway.

  • Cy||

    The Ze's are painful, my mind automatically started reading that in a German bad guy voice.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Yes, we need more government control on immigration. Government has worked so well on banning alcohol during prohibition, elimination of racism through legislation, the drug war, and gun control. I mean it's already "illegal" for these people that are currently immigrating to come here. Let's pass yet another executive order... that'll surely stop it!

  • Cy||

    Fuck that! Let them all in! We're the wealthiest country in HISTORY! We're gonna weflare this bitch up and MAGA like never before! We're going to go full shit-hole just to beat those European idiots at their own game. Yeah! We'll show them!

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Room 101 for you, non-comrade

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Do you believe that government can eliminate illegal immigration through more laws? They can't keep drugs out of federal prisons! Why do you think immigration is fundamentally different than the examples I used above?

  • Cy||

    Apples, oranges and absolutism. Extremes have already existed in the past for both sides of the argument. It is very possible.

  • perlchpr||

    Do you believe that government can eliminate illegal immigration through more laws?

    No, but I bet they could do a bang-up job on "illegal entry" by emplacing mines along the southern border.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    They've put barbed wire fences around federal and state prisons. Yet drugs and other illegal contraband find their ways inside. A border wall, more armed personnel on the border, land mines, a moat with alligators, all these things might increase the risk of crossing the border, but unless you can significantly alter the risk/reward relationship of whatever is crossing the border (labor, drugs, etc) the best you can hope for is modest reductions in illegal immigration with significant costs to society.

    When there's a demand, there will be a way... always.

  • perlchpr||

    unless you can significantly alter the risk/reward relationship of whatever is crossing the border

    And being nearly guaranteed of dying by being exploded doesn't count as a 'significant alteration of the risk/reward relationship'?

  • Ralph Wiggum||

    "They've put barbed wire fences around federal and state prisons. Yet drugs and other illegal contraband find their ways inside. "

    You can hide illegal aliens in your ass? Impressive.

  • PeteRR||

    Literally, Lol. Thank you.

  • damikesc||

    If the soon-to-be Mexican President is threatening to send a swarm of his apparently useless citizenry to the US, that is, by any definition of the word, an invasion.

    Invasions are met with force and the invaders are dealt with harshly.

    Given how pathetically large a percentage of Mexico's revenue remittances make up, it wouldn't be that hard to cut a massive dent in that.

  • perlchpr||

    How? We could (in theory) prevent Western Union from performing transfers, and I suppose we could issue banking rules that... forbid US financial institutions from honoring checks presented in Mexican banks? But unless we just flat out shut down the mail service to Mexico, we can't possibly prevent people from just mailing cash back home.

  • Fats of Fury||

    AMLO's a shoo in for Reason's Libertarian of the Year Award. I wonder if he's campaigning in a pair of old speedos?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    "The president is relying less and less on the advice of" Defense Secretary James Mattis, reports NBC.

    Are we going to see youtubes of Trump in his bunker railing that Steiner isn't attacking where he was supposed to?

  • damikesc||

    We aren't really sending troops all hither and yon. I'm not sure what he'd huddle with Mattis about.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Bringing an end to the military shitshows which we are currently involved?

  • Just Say'n||

    Which Mattis is not supportive of doing. So, NBC accidentally made an argument that should make libertarians pleased (well, anti-war libertarians, not the pro-war variety that happily promote neoconservatives)

  • AustinRoth||

    As this is an NBC report, I am inclined to think he is listening to Mattis more, not less.

  • Just Say'n||

    One can dream that he is not listening to Mattis, because that would be nice

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    If he wasn't before, he will soon be just to spite them. #FakeNews

  • KevinP||

    About 80% of these types of articles are crap. They rely on anonymous sources and are quietly debunked in later days and weeks.

  • Citizen X||

    California senator and Democratic darling Kamala Harris said she's open to running for president in 2020.

    That works out, since i'm already open to not voting for her.

  • Fats of Fury||

    Rumor has it she was open to Willie Brown.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

  • Ron||

    this goes to my point above about when will people start to claim defense while throwing molotov cocktails. When that happens the real violence will start maybe that will be a good thing

  • damikesc||

    They have every right not to do so.

    But, again, they are going to hate these rules they are creating here when they apply to them,

  • JWatts||

    +1, that's the part I like about these new precedents. The future tears will be delicious.

  • Just Say'n||

    "Meanwhile, the Trumpian right has been using the news to fuel their us-against-the-world posturing while old-school conservatives—and centrists of all stripes—wax on about civility."

    Yeah, sorry, but the "bake the cake" brand of libertarianism, really shouldn't have an opinion on this

  • Just Say'n||

    Especially while you're pimping gun grabber Weld

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Immigration and abortion are the only 'libertarian' positions there can be no compromise on. Those are also subjects that the left won't compromise on. Reason is a stepping stone employer and since the hard left controls the rest of the media, long term career impact has to be thought about.

  • Just Say'n||

    Also, remember, open borders is necessitated by "freedom of association", but that right is not valid to any business that isn't Left-wing. Also, "bake the cake".

    How is this not a parody site?

  • General_Tso||

    Increasingly, it is.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Longtorso is spreading Mikey talking points. Oh boy.

  • Just Say'n||

    Consistency in freedom of association is a Mikey talking point?

  • Just Say'n||

    Maybe John Stossel is Mikey then

  • ThomasD||

    Hey, cut Chipper some slack.

    I mean, when Ad Hom is all you got...

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    No, Reason being a stepping stone for a career in leftie journalism.

  • damikesc||

    Also odd since their complaint is completely valid.

    Hell, I still remember an OH official doxxing Joe the Plumber in 2008 and the media attacking him.

  • Juice||

    I don't know why you think Reason is part of the "bake the cake" brand.

  • Just Say'n||

    Clearly I imagined their support for Gary Johnson and the articles attacking those who said that his bake the cake position disqualified him.

  • Just Say'n||

  • Just Say'n||

  • Just Say'n||

    The Reason Foundation did side with the cake baker, curiously after the 2016 election. Not to worry, though, Weld is here to wave the woketarian banner high and thoroughly discredit the Libertarian Party

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    From your first link, I didn't read the rest:

    I'm quick to say that I am closer to the conservative outcome (which is held also by many libertarians) that businesses shouldn't be forced to serve customers they don't want to. Though I wouldn't limit the justification to some vague religious grounds (plenty of Christians have no problem with same-sex marriage, for instance) but to whatever a business owner believes.

    To say that all of Reason supports baking the cake just because they supported Gary Johnson against Hillary and Trump is quite the strawman.
  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Html fail. The last paragraph are my words.

  • Just Say'n||

    By this logic then someone who voted for Trump despite his opposition to trade agreements and support for draconian immigration policies could claim to be a libertarian as much as people who voted for Johnson despite his aversion to freedom of association and his support for military intervention (for humanitarian reasons, he asserts)?

  • Just Say'n||

    So then we should not call out people who voted for Trump, but opposed to his immigration policies?

    How does this make sense?

  • Just Say'n||

    "I wrote articles in defense of Trump from critics of his immigration policy, but don't hold me by his policies" is the same as "I wrote articles in defense of Johnson from critics of his statist cake baking policy, but don't hold me by his policies"

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    You are correct. A Trump supporter could claim to be a libertarian, in fact many who comment in H&R do. But to claim that you voted for Trump as the most libertarian candidate on the ballot is a bit of a stretch given Johnson being on the ballot. Save for the two issues you mention, I'm not aware of another position that Johnson held that goes against the LP party platform. While it's fair to say that Trump is more libertarian than Hillary, that's hardly setting the bar very high.

    Very few (if any) candidates are ever pure in their position to whatever dogma the "party" adheres to. Reason held the position that Gary Johnson was more friendly to libertarian ideals than any of the other candidates running, and they were right. Trump is hardly a social libertarian, even his most ardent supporters should be able to admit that. He doesn't even self-identify himself as a libertarian as far as I know.

  • Just Say'n||

    Ok, this is a fair argument that you made here. I don't disagree too much with your points, other than noting that I am not familiar with any position that Johnson held that qualifies him as "libertarian". Even his broad declarations to cut federal spending were no more detailed and specific than Trump's. In fact, there is a way better argument to be made that Trump was less interventionist than Johnson. And I don't think there is an argument that Trump was any more "libertarian" than any of the other candidates (including Hillary).

    And "social libertarian" doesn't really mean much more than "I'll use government to further my brand of culture war". And that is exactly what Johnson was proclaiming to do.

    I don't think Trump voters or Johnson voters should be given a pass for voting for unbelievably bad candidates.

  • Rhywun||

    I don't think Trump voters or Johnson voters should be given a pass for voting for unbelievably bad candidates.

    The only way to win is not to play.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    You are correct. A Trump supporter could claim to be a libertarian, in fact many who comment in H&R do. But to claim that you voted for Trump as the most libertarian candidate on the ballot is a bit of a stretch given Johnson being on the ballot. Save for the two issues you mention, I'm not aware of another position that Johnson held that goes against the LP party platform. While it's fair to say that Trump is more libertarian than Hillary, that's hardly setting the bar very high.

    Very few (if any) candidates are ever pure in their position to whatever dogma the "party" adheres to. Reason held the position that Gary Johnson was more friendly to libertarian ideals than any of the other candidates running, and they were right. Trump is hardly a social libertarian, even his most ardent supporters should be able to admit that. He doesn't even self-identify himself as a libertarian as far as I know.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Dan Savage
    There should be a march on Fox News HQ — all of this hateful propaganda is being broadcast from an office building in midtown Manhattan. Activists surrounded & shut down an ICE office in Portland. The same can and should be done to Fox News in NYC.

  • damikesc||

    It's different than fascism because...reasons.

  • Bee Tagger||

    Descartes got it wrong. I have been called fascist, therefore I am.

  • BYODB||

    Well, he did get it wrong but then again maybe don't base everything on the notion that god definitely exists?

  • Fancylad||

    Why?

  • BYODB||

    Feel free to look up how proofs work, but almost everyone agrees that starting with an improvable proposition doesn't make for a solid proof of the external world.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    California senator and Democratic darling Kamala Harris said she's open to running for president in 2020.

    All serious libertarians should support whoever gets the Democratic nomination, but Kamala Harris would be an especially good choice. A Harris / Gillibrand or Harris / Warren ticket would be ideal.

  • Cy||

    Because Trump is literally Hitler! Just look at all of the wars he's started! It's almost as bad as the MASSIVE government expansions and over reaches he's created! These new immigration laws and enforcement agencies are WAY out of line.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    This is only a partial list of the Drumpf regime's atrocities:

    Putting right-wing extremist Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court
    Repealing Net Neutrality
    Ruining the excellent economy he inherited from Obama
    Backing out of the Iran Deal
    Legitimizing North Korea's government while getting nothing in return
    Ripping children away from their parents

    The Hitler comparisons are justified.

  • Cy||

    He took us out of the Paris accord! He's like a real life Bond villain! We're all gonna die and it's all his fault! The CO2 gasses, I can feel the killing me! Where is she? She's still going to save us right!?!! i'm still with her!

  • creech||

    And I bet he set off the Hawai'ian volcano just because that state refused to vote for his greatness.

  • Just Say'n||

    No. The Russians set off the volcano.

  • Longtobefree||

    At Trump's direction.
    Yellowstone is next.

  • Variant||

    This is excellent satire.

  • Fancylad||

    It took me a while to catch on, because he sounds just like Tony and the Reverend K.

  • perlchpr||

    Nah. OBL actually comments. Rev K just spits out the same insult over and over again. Of the two parody accounts, OBL is clearly superior.

  • Nardz||

    Truth

    OBL presents actual progressive positions, just free of disguise.
    Rev just spouts the same progressive insecurity exclusively

  • CatoTheChipper||

    Cy, you forgot to mention how Trump has weaponized the Justice Department and the FBI against progressives, Democrats, and other political enemies.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    We'll know when it's primary time. Most dems with presidential aspirations didn't even bother the last time because they knew it was rigged for Hillary. Perhaps Sanders has too much faith in the system being fair.

    If the dem primary has many candidates, the Hillary machine has lost control.

  • damikesc||

    I cannot fathom a President Side Piece, personally.

    Would she STILL have to blow Willie Brown while she was in the WH?

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Thirty Years On, How Well Do Global Warming Predictions Stand Up?
    Thirty years of data have been collected since Mr. Hansen outlined his scenarios—enough to determine which was closest to reality. And the winner is Scenario C. Global surface temperature has not increased significantly since 2000, discounting the larger-than-usual El Niño of 2015-16. Assessed by Mr. Hansen's model, surface temperatures are behaving as if we had capped 18 years ago the carbon-dioxide emissions responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect. But we didn't. And it isn't just Mr. Hansen who got it wrong. Models devised by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have, on average, predicted about twice as much warming as has been observed since global satellite temperature monitoring began 40 years ago.

    What about Mr. Hansen's other claims? Outside the warming models, his only explicit claim in the testimony was that the late '80s and '90s would see "greater than average warming in the southeast U.S. and the Midwest." No such spike has been measured in these regions.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Or one could go with the non-paywalled version or the video version, right from the source.

  • Rhywun||

    Depends on whether you examine the numbers before or after they've been "adjusted".

  • Rhywun||

    Depends on whether you examine the numbers before or after they've been "adjusted".

  • Rhywun||

    The Red Hen Restaurant should focus more on cleaning its filthy canopies, doors and windows (badly needs a paint job)

    LOL perfect.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Troll in Chief

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Educated, decent Americans could readily predict this .

  • Just Say'n||

    "The bathrooms at Red Hen are DISGUSTING. Their toilet seats aren't made out of classy gold like Trump Tower penthouse suites. SAD."

    - Trump

  • Rich||

    Democrats have been applauding the move and calling for more entrepreneurs to place politics above business.

    Just don't try placing *religion* above business!

  • Rich||

  • damikesc||

    Well, her side did try to take over congress via assassination...

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Bubble/failing industries (see also the media) go hard left to try to get a loyal fanbase if they can't get a large one. Same thing as late night talk hosts. Kimmel would be as politically neutral as Carson if he had Carson's mass audience to risk. Older people are set in their brand preferences, so advertisers like younger audiences. Basically evil capitalism is OK with industries moving left because abortion and 67 genders don't cost them money, and they want to manipulate dumbass 20 somethings to buy deodorant just like their political leadership manipulates them to buy socialism.

    THERE'S A MASSIVE RESTAURANT INDUSTRY BUBBLE, AND IT'S ABOUT TO BURST

  • Rhywun||

    Re: bubble. That looks interesting but TL;DR. I'm guessing it has something to do with astronimical real estate prices and out-of-control wages.

  • Rhywun||

    Re: bubble. That looks interesting but TL;DR. I'm guessing it has something to do with astronimical real estate prices and out-of-control wages.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Yep. Going hard left is a response, not an original cause.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    At least that would never happen to a libertarian magazine!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The second season of HBO's Westworld concluded last night with a finale that has fans (including us here at Reason) divided.

    I haven't seen it yet, so this doesn't look like anything to me.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    NO SPOILERS!

    (Continuing the ALL CAPS theme, and surprised that FoE didn't lead with this.)

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    It's not Game of Thrones. Come on.

  • Derp-o-Matic 6000||

    Thanos kills Dumbledore

  • Bee Tagger||

    North Korea has decided to skip an annual anti-U.S. rally this year.

    Like me skipping my high school reunions, is it secretly about social anxiety and not whatever reasons i say out loud?

  • Just Say'n||

    So, when you said you were going to miss the reunion because you had a date with a supermodel that was a lie? I don't know what to believe anymore

  • Rhywun||

    Taking serious sides in the Sanders restaurant debate doesn't involve real stakes for almost anyone, though, so we can expect to see it dominating the news cycle for days to come

    Actually, the news was wall-to-wall lil' migrants all weekend. I didn't see this mentioned at all.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Walgreens is under fire after one of its pharmacists refused to sell medication to a woman having a miscarriage, saying that filling her prescription was against his religious beliefs.

    I wonder if he or she had listed that on the resume.

  • Just Say'n||

    Too bad there are literally no alternatives to Walgreens. And also there is literally only one pharmacist at every single Walgreens. Clearly, this calls for the state!

  • Just Say'n||

    I also find it ironic that this is posted right after defending the right of restaurants to refuse services to individuals.

  • Just Say'n||

    I miss this logical inconsistency

  • damikesc||

    Saying "Go elsewhere", though, doesn't force anybody to kiss the ring and bow down to their betters.

  • Rich||

    The corner of bad publicity and lawsuits!

  • Shirley Knott||

    This is a result of a rather old ( > 10 years) Walgreens policy that allowed them to not take a stand on the 'plan B' pill. Individual pharmacists were officially allowed to follow their personal conscience.
    Corporate cowardice. Finally blowing up in their face.

  • Just Say'n||

    Also, state laws, court rulings, and the pharmaceutical trade group allow them to not be forced to fill these prescriptions

  • damikesc||

    Just Sayin...unless youre refusing to serve a Trump admin member, you know businesses aint allowed to refuse business to anybody.

  • Shirley Knott||

    I can't wait for the vegan butcher shop.

  • Just Say'n||

    If someone wants to run a vegan butcher shop, I don't see how the state should get involved to prevent that.

  • Shirley Knott||

    I'm thinking of it more in terms of employment discrimination.
    This is what I find odious about Walgreens position on RU46 (or whatever it was) — if you don't define the job requirements, you wind up with customers left not knowing whether they'll get service or not based entirely on who's working that shift.
    When you aren't permitted to set job requirements,you wind up with vegans working the butcher shop counter.
    Should a Walgreens pharmacist who is Catholic be permitted to refuse sales of condoms? Of IUDs?

  • Just Say'n||

    I mean, you are aware that this already exists under employment law, right? Religious dissenters must be allowed reasonable accommodations. That's why Muslim flight attendants do not have to be mandated to serve alcohol.

    But, is this really about employment discrimination or that you believe contraceptives should enjoy some super dictate by government that they must be provided despite the beliefs of the owners?

  • Just Say'n||

    In this case, though, it has absolutely nothing to do with government employment law and has everything to do with the private business deciding that it is going to allow dissenters.

  • perlchpr||

    I'm like 99.9% sure that IUDs aren't sold at Walgreens, any more than hip implants are.

  • damikesc||

    When do pharmacists sell condoms? Those are OTC. Ditto any IUD not implanted by an OB/GYN.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Come to Berkeley.

    Very popular, quite tasty. They are moving into a larger location. It took over a closed wine and cheese shop.

    We also have a humane, locally sourced meat butcher.

    Sometimes, Berkeley parodies itself!

  • ThomasD||

    I agree, as long as they obtain their stock of vegans through legal means, nobody should tell them they can't chop them up and sell them.

  • Bee Tagger||

    The vast majority of restaurant and small-business owners couldn't pick out particular Trump administration officials or Congress critters, and likely don't want and can't afford to limit their customer base to ideologically simpatico people.

    Given that the Trump administration often courts this kind of attention, they may start wearing name tags in public to see if they can get manufacture some more outrage.

  • BYODB||

    Maybe, say, a yellow star of David to mark who works for Trump?

  • Shirley Knott||

    Red triangle.
    Nazi camp badges

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The Red Hen Restaurant should focus more on cleaning its filthy canopies, doors and windows (badly needs a paint job) rather than refusing to serve a fine person like Sarah Huckabee Sanders. I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it is dirty on the inside!
    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 25, 2018

    Red Hen would do well to take the advice of a businessman who is savvy enough to buy the White House for so cheap.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Has he painted it yet?
    I know he's fond of gold leaf...
    Think of it, The Gold House!

  • Rhywun||

    @KerryHowley
    If only Republicans liked money more and whiteness less

    Sick burn!

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    If only Republicans liked money more...

    The left is losing it. They can't even stereotype correctly anymore.

  • Citizen X||

    That is a disappointingly lazy take from Howley. She used to be pretty good.

  • Bee Tagger||

    The headline is too troll-y, the article is good though.

  • Rhywun||

    The weather is awful in Frankfurt,

    Yeah, four reasonably mild seasons - the horror!

    Anyway, the idea IS a fantasy, as the article admits. Why even waste time taking it seriously?

  • Bee Tagger||

    Even if the full idea seems a fantasy right now, maybe it helps nudge people in a different direction in their thinking?

  • Citizen X||

    Well, perhaps i should have read the article, then.

    She may have picked up some bad trolling habits in the Before Times, when she was that rare Reason writer who'd occasionally swim around in the cesspool we call the Hit'n'Run comments.

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

    An in depth look at the article Holey cited: http://quillette.com/2017/08/2.....al-hubris/

  • Rhywun||

    That's a pretty good, reasonable response. It certainly understands human nature better than The Economist.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    "How hard is it to imagine, for example, people who strongly believe that abortion is murder deciding that judges or other officials who protect abortion rights should not be able to live peaceably with their families? Down that road lies a world in which only the most zealous sign up for public service."

    TRUMP IS A ONCE IN A LIFETIME FASCIST WHO WARRANTS SPECIAL MEASURES. We haven't seen evil of this magnitude since Mitt Romney ran for president.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    I look forward to True Democracy, that being defined as rule by whoever has the best violent mob.

  • Cy||

    "that being defined as rule by whoever has the best violent mob"

    It's not going to end well. The useful idiots starting this aren't going to come out of it alive. Who ever does come out alive, odds wise, is going to have a lot of blood on their hands.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
    The logical outcome of which is cannibalism then autophagy then starvation and extinction.
    We're already seeing the left eating their own. It will get worse. (The right, of course, has done this as well.)

  • Cy||

    "(The right, of course, has done this as well.)"

    But the right has all of the guns. They don't need to riot when they can just revolt.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Both sides are revolting.
    Left Wing and Right Wing — the two wings of the bird of prey.

  • Ron||

    Just look at Mexico. Not only does the left want to import it people but also its government style of killing candidates while running for office.

  • perlchpr||

    I wonder, will the left suddenly decide they like firearms?

    Because at the moment, if it comes down to armed mobs vs: unarmed mobs, I know who I'm putting my money on.

  • Longtobefree||

    The left hires right wing bodyguards, and has them carry the guns. And they call it principles.
    So it will be armed, professional, left wing mobs against armed, unorganized, amateur right wing mobs.

  • Bee Tagger||

    And when there's no more spectacle left in this circus? Bring on the billboard battles!

    It's not quite as silly as this but this meme-ified tweet from the ACLU gave me a similar sad-to-my-bones feeling as when Hillary did the twitter macarena with "delete your account":
    here

  • Just Say'n||

    "The president is relying less and less on the advice of" Defense Secretary James Mattis, reports NBC."

    This is definitely a positive for Trump

  • John||

    The thing about not serving those of the wrong color or politics or whatever is that if it becomes too common we run the risk of becoming a tribal society. Tribal societies are always poor because they put tribe over economic benefit and won't trade with each other. You can't have a wealthy society much less one that is competitive in the modern world if businesses are forever being forced to make decisions based on tribe rather than an economic advantage. This especially comes to the forefront in hiring. In tribal societies, you can't hire people from the other tribe and you can't fire people from your own tribe. So, you end up with a workforce that is not based on merit and is lazy and entitled even when it does have merit.

    Can businesses do this kind of nonsense that went on at the Red Hen? Sure. But if such behavior ever becomes the norm, it is nothing but a road to backwardness and poverty.

  • Rich||

    In tribal societies, you can't hire people from the other tribe and you can't fire people from your own tribe. So, you end up with a workforce that is not based on merit and is lazy and entitled even when it does have merit.

    Hmm. Tribal societies seem like mandatorily-diverse societies. Weird.

  • John||

    Yes they are. That is a good way to put it.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Are you saying you're not happy with the way Rwanda turned out?

  • John||

    Oddly, no I am not. Go figure.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Trump doesn't believe in due process for people who attempt to cross U.S. borders without going through official channels.

    As a general rule few in power love due process.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Liberals fire back that Trump staffers aren't a protected class in the way racial and sexual minorities are.

    Oh boy.

  • Just Say'n||

    Why does the Left's position not appear all that different from Gary Johnson's?

  • Citizen X||

    Li... libertarian moment?

  • Just Say'n||

    "At that moment Citizen X realized it was all over. He had come to love Big Johnson."

  • Rhywun||

    You know who else loves Big Johnson?

  • Citizen X||

    No, liberals do not. Progressives, on the other hand...

  • Bee Tagger||

    I don't know why they would give group partially responsible for defining what a protected class is the blueprints for making what Red Hen did illegal in the future.

  • perlchpr||

    This was the line I was coming here to comment on.

    It's like goddamn near nobody in this country (in the world?) can tell the difference any more in between "legal vs: illegal" and "right vs: wrong".

    Even when you walk them through it, they won't get it.

    "OK, you're right. It is illegal. Now, if that law were repealed, and it were no longer illegal for a restaurant to refuse to serve black people, would that make it right for them to do so?"

    "Well, no."

    "OK, so, can you see how simply stating that it's not illegal for the restaurant doesn't comment on the morality?"

    "BUT TRUMP IS HITLER!"

    "*sigh*"

  • damikesc||

    Me loudly saying "Man, this food tastes like refried cat shit" isn't illegal. But unless it tastes like refried cat shit, and I'd have to have some odd knowledge to figure this out, it'd be WRONG to do.

    Progs hating Christianity is a bad idea because, now, they look at LAWS for morality. Which is patently insane.

  • Mickey Rat||

    But when they argue in favor of baking cakes and such they always go forth that the business has no choice but to serve the public.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    If you think the left is completely losing their minds now, just wait until November after they lose yet another election.

  • Rich||

    "If only Mueller had released his report!"

  • Cy||

    For once, it'll be all Trump's fault. They won't be giving him an ounce of credit.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Democrats are 100% guaranteed to win the House in November. When they do, it will correctly be interpreted as a repudiation of Drumpf's agenda.

    #BlueWave

  • John||

    And when they don't win the house and lose seats in the Senate, the left is going to show that peak crazy and peak retard are truly unattainable. I know you are a sock puppet. But you do accurately reflect the 100% certainty that leftists have about things returning to normal for them this November. It isn't going to happen and I can't see them taking it well.

  • Z565||

    People have a good case to call bullshit on elections rigged by gerrymandering.

  • John||

    They don't when their side is just as guilty of it. And if you don't like it, win an election at the state level sometimes. Gerrymandering didn't cause the Democrats to lose control of the legislatures in so many states. They did that to themselves.

  • damikesc||

    Sure.

    They should've done so DECADES ago, as it is now a new phenomenon.

    Doing so only because you lost the power to do it is just silly.

  • John||

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/oba.....necessary/

    On Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace interviewed former DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, who said that under President Barack Obama, they did detain some children alone and some families together, two policies for which Donald Trump has been under considerable fire.

    The whole thing is nothing but fake news and fake outrage.

  • Z565||

    You're spreading misinformation. How are you not aware of the following sequence:

    (1) Trump announces months ago he's going to get tough on immigration by separating families as a punitive measure to dissuade lawful and unlawful immigration.

    (2) Trump enacts the new policy and outrage ensures.

    (3) Trump agrees that his new policy was "too tough" and he backtracks some.

  • John||

    You are just lying. Obama had the same policy. Johnson admits to it in the link.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Obama had the same family separation policy, which he applied selectively.

    Trump/Sessions announce a new 'zero-tolerance' policy, in which this Obama policy is going to be enforced much more strictly.

    So the complaints are about *both* policies: first, that families are being separated at all, and second, that families are being separated much more frequently, and more important, *optionally*, to serve as a deterrent That the kids themselves are being turned into a weapon to stop illegal immigration.

    And yes, people didn't complain enough when Obama did it. And yes, much of the coverage about Trump acting like Obama did is selective and only because Trump is doing it. There were no Time magazine covers showing Obama deporting a child. I get that. Bravo, you made your point.

    But just because Obama did it, doesn't make Trump's actions any more right or proper. What's more, it doesn't make Trump's decision to use the children themselves as deterrents any more moral or just.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Meanwhile, the Trumpian right has been using the news to fuel their us-against-the-world posturing while old-school conservatives—and centrists of all stripes—wax on about civility."

    I guess that's the way we all break down in ENB's weird world. You can tell who's what because where centrists and old world types want civility, the Trumpian "right" . . . ?

    Fuck civility.

    The left--of all stripes, far as I can tell--are making a mockery of themselves by advocating association rights 'for me but not for thee'. The lady that owns that restaurant has every right to be as big of an asshole as she wants to be--to whomever she wants to be an asshole--and any law that compels her to serve anyone against her will would be (and is) disgraceful. Everybody pointing out the hypocrisy of the left, here, is correct--regardless of where they land on ENB's weird political spectrum.

    P.S. Left and right always was and is about economic issues, ENB's views of the political landscape notwithstanding. The latter just betrays ENB's strange view of the world, I guess, which although typical has little or nothing to do with the real one.

    Trump won the primaries and the presidential election by appealing to the rust belt left. Trump's economic policies aren't much further to the right than the UAW's--and neither are those of his supporters.

  • Rich||

    Maxine Waters: "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, and you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere."

    What would Rosa Parks do?

  • Ken Shultz||

    That's more or less what Rosa Parks did, isn't it?

    Once they arrested her for a stupid reason, she refused to associate with the bus company, encouraged others to do likewise, and the Montgomery Bus Boycott was born.

    Nothing wrong with that.

  • John||

    No that isn't what she did. Refusing to associate with someone is not the same thing as actively seeking them out and creating a mob to harass them. The two are totally different things.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I don't know what you're talking about with the mob. Are you saying Rosa Parks sought out a mob or the lady in the restaurant?

    Regardless, I'm not trying to draw any kind of equivalency between the motives of the lady in the restaurant and Rosa Parks' motives.

    I'm drawing an equivalency between the association rights of nice people and the association rights of everybody else. Those rights are the same fucking thing--no matter whether the person in question is sympathetic or mean--and the government's duty is to protect our association rights, not to violate them in law.

  • John||

    f 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

    Creating a mob to push back on them is not refusing to associate with them. Waters is not taking about boycots here. She is talking about having mobs of people make the private lives of anyone associated with Trump impossible. Whatever that is, that is not what Rosa Parks was doing.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Some states call her plan stalking and terroristic threats, so she might want to be careful.

    The 1st Amendment only protects peaceful assemblies of people, not lynch mobs.

  • Ken Shultz||

    You can argue about what Waters meant by what she said.

    I was talking about whether the government should respect people's association rights.

    When Rosa Parks exercised hers, they weren't sacred because her cause was just--just like people should be free to exercise their free speech rights to say terrible things, our association rights are legitimate enough for the government to protect them, even when they're used in ways that hurt some people's feelings or livelihoods.

    Rosa Parks is an example of free people exercising their association rights.

    So is the lady who refuses to serve Trump officials in her restaurant.

    So is the guy who refuses to cater a gay wedding.

    Whatever else you want to add on to that is superfluous in my book. I have zero interests in endorsing Maxine Waters or any other idiot politician anyway--regardless of what they say one way or the other about this. The lesson to be learned from this isn't that Maxine Waters is a shithead. I already knew that! The lesson is about the government's obligation to protect our association rights.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I don't care what Maxine Waters says about anything. I used to work in the district she represents! I used to take her seriously when arguing with people who lived in her district about whether what she was advocating was good or true. When I left that job, I stopped caring about Maxine Waters.

    I stopped taking her seriously during her questioning of Mr. Toyoda about the safety failures of Toyotas in the U.S. During her questioning, it because quite obvious that she didn't know that Toyota (and other Japanese car manufacturers) build cars here in the U.S.

    She kept insisting that Mr. Toyoda admit that cars made by American workers were just as high in quality as cars made by the Japanese. Old man Toyoda kept calmly explaining to her that the Toyota cars in question were all manufactured in the U.S. by American workers. She still couldn't get it through her head! It was among the most cringe inducing spectacles I've ever seen--like watching someone pick their nose and eat it in a job interview . . .

    Point is, I will never change my mind about anything important because of anything Maxine Waters says or does. She's a non-factor. "Because Maxine Waters" isn't a good reason to think anything. I'm neither for nor against the Democrats or freedom of association or anything else because of Maxine Waters, and anybody who thinks anything because of Maxine Waters is someone who is presumably easily distracted by inconsequential shit.

  • John||

    Sure the government should respect people's association rights. The question of "should it be illegal" is different from "is this the right thing to do or something we should not discourage". Yeah, it is and should be legal. That, however, does not make it a good idea or anything that will end well for society.

  • Ken Shultz||

    There are ideologies that hold that our rights should only be protected so long as doing so is in the best interests of society--progressives, socialists, communists, fascists, other totalitarians.

    Almost everything we do (or don't do) is harmful to someone else in some way. No, I can't grow wheat on my own property for my own consumption without impacting interstate commerce in however small a way, but whoever said I only exist for the benefit of interstate commerce?

    I can't say that Scientology, sugary sodas, Nickelback, or motorcycles are in the best interests of society in any individual case. I think freedom tends to give us results that average out better than government choosing things like religion, speech, association, etc. on our behalf based on what they see is best for society--but I can't say that's true in every individual case.

    It just averages out that way.

    In the meantime, I have a qualitative preference for freedom, and when I say the government should be there to protect our rights, part of what I'm talking about is protecting me from being subjected to someone else's qualitative preferences by way of the coercive power of government. Neither individuals nor their rights exist for the good of society--and the people who believe they do are progressives, socialists, communists, fascists, and other authoritarians and totalitarians. I don't believe you should only be free to do what's in everyone else's best interests.

    I'm a libertarian, damn it.

  • ThomasD||

    Neither individuals nor their rights exist for the good of society

    The 'good of society' is as nebulous as it is Utilitarian, and it is not libertarian metric. But it is a metric common to all governments - our own Constitution includes multiple instances of it - e.g. 'general welfare'

    Ideal libertarianism is anarchism, but that is also utopian. Practical libertarian governance will seek to maximize liberty, but sometimes that will involve measures beneficial for the commons.

  • Homple||

    The government formally gave up its duty to protect free association rights by adopting the 1960s civil rights laws and has been implacably hostile to such rights ever since.

    You're beating a fossilized horse here.

  • Just Say'n||

    "The government formally gave up its duty to protect freedom of consumption by adopting the drug scheduling scheme in the 1970's.

    You're beating a fossilized horse here."

    Damn this could work for anything

  • Ken Shultz||

    "You're beating a fossilized horse here."

    So long as the government continues to use law to perpetrate injustices against people's association rights, it will continue to be a relevant issue.

    Our rights are not fossils so long as violating them continues to have negative consequences.

  • Homple||

    I wish there was a way to stop the government from trampling those rights in perpetuity. I think the population is so far gone that it can never happen.

  • ThomasD||

    Our rights are not fossils so long as violating them continues to have negative consequences.

    Yep, and a negative consequence of the welfare state is it's interference with what should be the right to freedom of travel.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Constitution is very clear that assemblies are only protected if they are peaceful.

    Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

  • ||

    'Little House on the Prairie' book banned for 'stereotypical attitudes'.

    But it's okay. Robby assures us snowflake conservatives are just as bad....to be sure.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018.....award.html

  • Ken Shultz||

    Has Robby ever claimed to be a libertarian, or is that something some people have just projected onto him?

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Damn, you beat me to it by a minute! The left has completely lost their fucking minds.

  • Longtobefree||

    You cannot lose what you never had.

  • Just Say'n||

    The daughter of Laura Ingalls Wilder was a staunch libertarian who used her inheritance to help support the work of individualist causes. So, I fully expect an article denouncing her any minute now

  • John||

    I can't figure out what her stereotypical views are. If they involve Indians, her father lived illegally on Indian land during her childhood. Her views of the Indians, unlike your typical stupid, woke Prog, comes from actual observation. Maybe it is the progs who have the stereotypes.

  • Just Say'n||

    I'll say this- Michael Landon was an awesome actor and I will fight anyone who says otherwise. Don't mess with Little Joe

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    By the way, Wilder apologized for some of the more insensitive passages in her books before she died, and she died over 60 years ago!

    Why is her in-her-lifetime apology suddenly no longer considered to be good enough now, 60 years later? Oh right, because the left has gone stark raving insane.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The book wasn't banned. The name of the award was changed.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Has it been banned? Because even the article you posted says it continues to be published and read.
    They changed the name of the award.

  • John||

    http://twitter.com/HotlineJosh.....0376666118

    CBS News Poll taken from June 21st and 22nd after the family separation "crisis" shows Democratic advantage down to four points on the generic ballot. Every torpedo they launch at Trump seems to circle back and hit them.

  • Cy||

    The band keeps playing all the Coastal Prog's requests. They'll keep ignoring the rest of the country and they'll keep losing elections because of it.

    The recent outrage for immigrant children stinks so bad of elitism it's laughable.

  • John||

    Yes it does. The fact that ad hominem is a fallacy does not excuse you from arguing in good faith. Everyone knows that the only reason these families get separated is that the parents choose to cross the border illegally. And everyone knows that that is the best of a bad set of options created by the family choosing to come here illegally and that Obama did the same thing. For the Progs and their media hacks to suddenly decide this is the worst thing since the Holocaust after not saying a word about it for years and offering no solution to it other than "just let everyone who wants to come into the country" is a complete slap in the face to the rest of the country and an insult to their intelligence. It is not a surprise that it has backfired.

  • Z565||

    Except there are credible allegations that Trump is unlawfully impeding lawful refugee protection by restricting access to ports of entry. It's quite the irony when you turn a blind eye to unlawful govt actions but play up misdemeanors unlawful entry.

  • Ralph Wiggum||

    "unlawful govt actions "

    Well it's actually turning a blind eye to what people like you think are " credible allegations"

  • John||

    Except there are credible allegations that Trump is unlawfully impeding lawful refugee protection by restricting access to ports of entry.

    As someone who knows a fair amount about immigration and refugee law, that statement is complete nonsense. I don't even know how you would restrict access to ports of entry in the first place. We can't stop people from showing up at the border. Only Canada and Mexico can do that. We can stop people who do not have VISAs from boarding planes and boats bound for the US, but that has been going on since well before my time.

    You are just spewing nonsense.

  • perlchpr||

    I don't even know how you would restrict access to ports of entry in the first place.

    Presumably a "US Port of Entry" is a staffed location? Possibly even with doors?

    So, tell everyone to go home and then lock the doors. Voila! Port of Entry, closed.

  • perlchpr||

    Note that I'm not saying this is happening or has happened, just that it's not as impossible as you seem to think it is.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    The left is mentally deranged, part a gazillion and three: Laura Ingalls Wilder, whom you may possibly remember from such books as Little House on the Prairie, is having her name removed from an award that has been around for over 60 years. Why? Because she is now deemed to have been too "politically incorrect" of course!

    Remember when we were told that this kind of "erasure from history" was going to be strictly reserved only for the truly evil types, like slave owners and such? Anyone who actually believed that crap was and is an idiot.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    CANADIAN LIBERAL PARTY EXECUTIVE SAYS 'SUBHUMAN' TRUMP SUPPORTERS SHOULD BE SENT TO 'CAMPS'
    The post is entitled "Mr. President, F**k You!" It was apparently issued in response to the ongoing controversy surrounding the separation of child migrants from their parents in the U.S.

    "Trump is a bigot, homophobe, racist, and misogynist. He can go f— himself," Elyas rants, before asking a responder, "Why are you on (my) personal page? We aren't even friends. In fact, you can f**k yourself, too, you racist Trump supporter."

  • loveconstitution1789||

    About time one of those lefties admitted that is their plan to end dissent to socialism.

  • damikesc||

    Arent libel laws in Canada quite supportive of the plaintiff?

  • Z565||

    When fighting monsters take care not to become one. That thought should always be at the top of your mind.

  • Ralph Wiggum||

    You first mr "credible allegations" = "unlawful actions"

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "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," Waters said. "The people are going to turn on them, they're going to protest, they're going to absolutely harass them until they decide that they're going to tell the president, 'No, I can't hang with you, this is wrong, this is unconscionable, and we can't keep doing this to children.'"

    And the same thing will happen to lefties soon. Some conservative businesses will refuse service to gays, Communists, Socialists, and other people that are being like 5 year olds about Hillary losing.

    It is a free country and people have the right to act like 5 year olds. If we dont let the lefties convert the USA to a Communist wasteland that is.

  • perlchpr||

    Some conservative businesses will refuse service to gays, Communists, Socialists, and other people that are being like 5 year olds about Hillary losing.

    And best of all, the CRA won't stop them, because they can just say "I'm refusing to service them based on their politics."

  • Longtobefree||

    "Papers, please". Show a Republican voter registration card, or no service, no admission even.

  • Juice||

    Trump doesn't believe in due process for people who attempt to cross U.S. borders without going through official channels.

    "Due process" and "judicial process" are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.

  • John||

    Yes. Due process is a sliding scale depending on the amount of sanction the government is giving. Telling someone they have to go home is not the same as locking them in prison or killing them and thus does not require anything like the amount of due process.

  • Juice||

    So you agree with that statement about due process vs judicial process?

  • John||

    Absolutely. Judicial process is a method of granting people due process. It is not an end in itself and is not the only way to give someone due process.

  • Juice||

    I guess Eric Holder wasn't wrong about everything, then.

  • John||

    Yes he is. And claiming that judicial process and due process are the same things is a common fallacy people on both sides resort to when it is convenient.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The last season of GoT was mighty disappointing.

    The second season of Westworld wasn't as good as the first.

    The second season of Handmaid's Tale wasn't as good as the first either.

    The third season of The Expanse has been as good or better than the second season.

    The second season of Legion was good, but probably too esoteric to last.

    The second season of Mr. Robot wasn't as good as the first, but the third was better than the first in some ways.

    It's rare for a show to get better over time. I wouldn't say the second season of Preacher was better than the first, but a lot of that is because Jackie Earle Haley's performance as Odin Quincannon in the first season was one of the best performances I've ever seen. The second season of Preacher, otherwise, lived up to the first (even if neither lived up the comic book, Nerds!) , and here's to hopin' that the third season will be as good as the second.

    Law of entropy, though. It's bound to fall apart eventually. The universe trends towards entropy, the television universe even more so.

    P.S. Want an excellent argument for free trade? This is a great one:

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/.....FGW6YN3035

  • Cy||

    I'm afraid of how bad the final season of GoT is going to be.

    Glad to hear The Expanse hasn't gone full retard yet.

  • Citizen X||

    Now that The Expanse is an Amazon joint, Avasarala will finally be able to cuss as much as she's supposed to.

  • BYODB||

    I didn't think that the sale to Amazon was final yet...know something I don't?

  • Citizen X||

  • BYODB||

    Nice, although maybe Bezos is into that? Either way I'm always a season behind since I like to wait until a season is over to watch it all at once...

  • Citizen X||

    Same here - i don't have cable, so i burned through the first two seasons on Prime and have been trying (mostly unsuccessfully) to avoid spoiling the third for myself until Amazon gets that one.

    A show like The Expanse probably works better in a binge format anyway, especially since the climaxes and time-jumps from the books keep happening midseason.

  • Rhywun||

    For those who weren't aware, she does curse like a sailor on the DVDs.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    The expanse has been stretching this season. The first half was good but the last few episodes have been phoning it in.

  • Ralph Wiggum||

    I have a solution. Stop following the herd.

  • DajjaI||

    I think these displays of 'incivility' are great and healthy. The problem would be if we legislate against it, and then resentments build up and explode in violence. This is happening across Europe. The fact is, everyone* has a wacky political belief of one kind or another (e.g. immigration, abortion, mental illness, etc) and it's good that these are finally being exposed.

    * Except me, of course.

  • Cy||

    Did you ever give the translation of the Libyan sign posted earlier?

  • John||

    It is a terrible road to go down, though I agree to legislate to try and stop it is just as bad or worse. The problem is that it is a fine line between protest and violence. How long before someone does something violent like burn down a restaurant that refuses service to someone or murders someone? Once that happens, then it is very difficult to stop the other side from retaliating with similar violence. And once a cycle of political violence starts, it is very hard to stop. All of these people on both sides who are advocating for this stuff have no idea the kind of danger they are creating.

  • DajjaI||

    All protest should be PEACEFUL. We must speak out against and condemn violence. As long as we do that, we'll be fine. This idea that incivility incites violence is a huge and counterproductive fallacy. In fact it's extortion, and we are tired of being held hostage to it. Let people express themselves and get discredited if necessary in the free market. The world will be a much better place!

    Libertarians for Liberty and Freedom 2018 approves this message.

  • John||

    Protests should be peaceful and serve a purpose beyond harassing someone you don't like. What is the point of protesting in front of a restaurant other than harassing the owners no matter how peaceful it is? Protests are valuable in tyrannical societies where the government depends on convincing everyone they are alone in their hatred of it to stay in power. Their protests are deadly to a government because they show people they are not alone in hating the government. But in a free society like ours where everyone is free to speak out, organized protests serve no useful function besides virtue signaling and harassment. They were successful in the civil rights era because they showed the claims that blacks were better off and wanted Jim Crow to be lies. But today, they really serve no purpose.

  • DajjaI||

    This is a libertarian web site. What are you doing here? Maybe try Vox of HuffPo.

  • John||

    You can't seem to understand the difference between "can" and "should". Just because people have a right to do something and the government has no right to stop them, doesn't mean that doing it is a good idea or not worthy of criticism.

  • Just Say'n||

    The point is that you don't need to have a point to exercise your right to freedom of assembly. However, woketarians suddenly pretending to care about free of association is beyond ridiculous.

  • John||

    I will tell you the same thing I told Dajjal. Can and should are two different concepts. Just because the government has no right to stop you doesn't make your protest desireable or something that should not be criticized.

  • Just Say'n||

    True. I'd just add that I find the sudden defense of "freedom of association" by woketarians to be insufferable. The hypocrisy is so pungent it's disgusting

  • John||

    They are all about defending freedom to associate right up until someone they don't like exercises that freedom. They are horrible hypocrites.

  • DajjaI||

    Your comments serve no purpose beyond harassing people you don't like.

    (See how that works?)

  • Just Say'n||

    This is also true. It's hard to objectively decide how "productive" a protest is. Most protests nowadays are just venting blind rage fueled by utter ignorance. This preferable than reacting with violence. Like trying to assassinate members of Congress on a baseball field

  • John||

    Sure. And it is your right to say that. My right to make comments doesn't take away your right to criticize them or in any way make my making them a good idea. That is exactly my point with protests. Moreover, if a protest is for the purpose of running someone out of business, that violates the NAP and should not be acceptable to libertarians. Your right not to associate with a business does not give you the right to prevent others who feel differently from doing so.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    This is the dangerous game we play when we blow up social conventions. The libertine nihilism that poses as libtertarianism here actually wants this chaos in the misguided assumption that because markets self-order then social groupings and conventions must as well.

  • John||

    That is a great way to put it Skippy. I could not agree more and wish I had written what you just wrote.

  • BYODB||


    This is the dangerous game we play when we blow up social conventions. The libertine nihilism that poses as libtertarianism here actually wants this chaos in the misguided assumption that because markets self-order then social groupings and conventions must as well.

    Something tells me that both groups think that by exploding the current order they will be able to remake the next order in their own image.

    Amusingly, both of them are gravely mistaken.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    GodMoralityReason is on their side.

  • Jerryskids||

    Yeah, the problem with that is that one side insists that speech is violence. You wear a MAGA hat, they smash you in the face with a baseball bat and insist you started the violence and they're just defending themselves.

    Unfortunately for these people who think they have the right to silence dissent with violence, they also think arming themselves with melee weapons and engaging in mass hand-to-hand combat is a winning tactic. Which it hasn't been since about the invention of the repeating rifle. Ranged weapons and staying spread out is pretty basic combat training.

  • Just Say'n||

    What if we forced pharmacists to violate their conscience? Or a baker to make a cake? That's different for reasons, no?

  • DajjaI||

    HAHA you got me good!

  • Just Say'n||

    I wasn't trying to "get you". I agree with what you said, I just think most people hold to this position when it's convenient

  • John C. Randolph||

    I think these displays of 'incivility' are great and healthy.

    No, they're snotty, obnoxious, and very unhealthy.

    -jcr

  • Eidde||

    "Liberals fire back that Trump staffers aren't a protected class in the way racial and sexual minorities are."

    This is begging the question.

    Some jurisdictions have sexual orientation as a suspect classification, some jurisdictions don't. The matter is still up for debate.

    Meanwhile, at least in the employment context, there's a movement to ban political discrimination, and many progressives (plus the state of Utah) seem to support this.

    Is it too much of a stretch to extend the ban on political discrimination to "places of public accommodation"?

    After all (and I've actually seen this argument in other contexts, I'm not doing a parody) - the people, including people of all political views, pay for the ROADS which businesses use, so businesses in exchange should be open to all!

  • John||

    No it is not. And beyond that, you rightly point out that it is begging the question. Whether you can legally do it is not the same issue as whether you are right to do it. You can legally do lots of awful things.

  • Eidde||

    In Victoria, Australia employers can't discriminate based on politics (with some exceptions).

    So, are they wrong? Shouldn't America adopt the enlightened policies of "other industrialized nations"?

  • Eidde||

    But I can't seem to find a Utah law about political affiliation - I may have been mistaken about that one.

  • sarcasmic||

    Meanwhile, at least in the employment context, there's a movement to ban political discrimination, and many progressives (plus the state of Utah) seem to support this.

    I can't see any possible way that any progressive would support this. Politics is a choice.

    Skin color, sexual orientation (can't be proved either way but for the sake of argument I assume it's genetic), chromosomes, parents, place of birth, and other things are not choices. Those are the things that the left celebrates in the name of tolerance.

    Choices, like politics, religion, occupation, and others are not to be tolerated unless they are correct (what the progressive would do). Those things are not to be tolerated at all if they are incorrect. They are to be shunned and punished.

    So I really have a difficult time believing that anyone on the left would support a choice (other than abortion of course) as a protected class.

  • Just Say'n||

    Having previously had an abortion is being pushed as a protected class in Missouri or, at least, St. Louis passed such a law

  • Eidde||

    California is progressive, isn't it?

    Maybe they weren't progressive when the law was passed in 1937, but now that they've gone prog, they could have gotten rid of this law but chose to keep it on the books.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Idea: send Ben Carson to go eat at the Red Hen, and see if she has has the balls to refuse him service. If she does, haul her ass into federal court for racial discrimination.

    If these left-wing scumbags want war, go to war. Hoist them by their own fucking petards.

  • Eidde||

    But they've already shown that they don't discriminate against Trump administration people for being black. They can simply say they have no problem with black customers as long as they don't work for Trump.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Heh... Then send in someone who looks like Carson, let him get kicked out, and then he can guilt-bomb them for being unable to tell two black men apart. Per left-wing SJW rules, they'll have to commit hara-kiri to atone for their racism.

    -jcr

  • John||

    Sure they can. But that won't stop them from having to refuse service to a black man and the image doing so will create.

  • Cy||

    That... and it would be epically entertaining.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Gee, that kinda sounds like disparate impact...

  • John||

    That is brilliant. I so wish they would do that. The spectacle of watching a Progressive white business owner refuse to do business with a black man would be priceless.

  • Libertymike||

    Is there a defense available to a public accommodation defendant such that the defendant can claim that it did not discriminate upon the basis of the plaintiff's membership in a protected class, but, rather, the discrimination was based upon another factor, i.e., being a member of the Trump administration?

  • Eidde||

    That's a common dispute - e. g., "he or xe was fired for absenteeism, not his race, or xir sexual identity."

    Then they investigate to see if the firing was pretextual. Do they tolerate absenteeism for other employees? Are they on record saying "we gotta find a way to get rid of this person whose protected-class status we don't like!"

  • John||

    There is. You can discriminate against anyone just so long as it is not for a prohibited purpose. "We don't like the looks of you" is perfectly fine, just so long as you don't use that as a subterfuge to discriminate based on race or sex or religion.

  • BYODB||

    Well, see, first you need to throw the chicken bones and then interpret what was in their heart at the time...

  • Happy Chandler||

    You can sound really smart to yourself when you have absolutely no clue how other people think.

  • John C. Randolph||

    I believe that anyone is entitled to refuse to do business with anyone else for any reason, or no reason at all. If I concur with their criteria, I'll spend my money with them. If not, I won't. I might even call them assholes if their criteria are obnoxious to me.

    That being said, the owner of this restaurant kicked a hornet's nest, and it's pretty fucking stupid to bitch about the results.

    -jcr

  • John||

    Yes John. Who knows what the owner actually thinks. But if I own a restaurant, I wouldn't want any part of this. I would happily serve anyone who showed up and had the money. No way in hell would I want my business to be the subject of an outrage mob by either side if I could possibly prevent it.

  • Sevo||

    "Everyone Has an Opinion About Whether Restaurants Should Serve Trump Staffers"

    Does that include SCOTUS?

  • Cy||

    Did someone's fudge get packed?

  • CDRSchafer||

    Let me know if you're a progressive Marxist jackass and I'll stay away from your crappy business on my own. Because your political idiocy means your product sucks.

  • perlchpr||

    Even if the product doesn't suck, I want to not give that person money.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Needs more "era of Trump" or "Trump's America".

  • Azathoth!!||

    •Trump doesn't believe in due process for people who attempt to cross U.S. borders without going through official channels.

    There is an issue with 'due process' that does bear attention.

    I can understand that when someone is accused of a crime, and there's an investigation.

    I cannot understand why there is an 'investigation' when someone is caught in the act of committing a crime. I cannot understand the purpose of a trial at that point.

    So, if people are caught while illegally crossing the border, I cannot see the purpose in wasting time and money housing them, feeding them. and lawyering them up. Send them home right then and there.

    No cages, no separations, no camps. You tried, and you got caught, back to start.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    What if this person has a legitimate claim to asylum?

  • perlchpr||

    Then they should have shown up at a Port of Entry.

    Even when McDonald's is open for business during the day, they'll throw you out if you walk in the back door and start poking around in the kitchen. Even if you then claim "No, I'm here to legitimately buy a hamburger!"

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Then they should have shown up at a Port of Entry.

    Yes they should have. But they didn't. Do their claims of facing persecution and violence back home then suddenly disappear if they didn't do things according to the proper procedure?

  • NashTiger||

    Yes

    Because we all know they are bullshit

  • Azathoth!!||

    What if this person has a legitimate claim to asylum?

    What if?

    This isn't about them.

    "if people are caught while illegally crossing the border"

    Refugees don't HAVE to illegally cross the border. If you cross the border illegally, you're not a refugee. Duh.

  • Nardz||

    And isn't "due process" exactly what they chose to avoid?

  • Azathoth!!||

    Here's the situation--

    Leftists are allowed to refuse service to people.

    Leftists are allowed to demand that people serve them.

    That's the world we live in. We have the leftists who pretend to be libertarians who infect Reason and damned near every other libertarian outlet defending this--because it benefits them.

    The problem is the catalyst.

    Actual libertarians and others on the right find the left incomprehensible. The philosophy does work. The dogma invariably gets believers turning on each other. It is lunacy.

    It is going to blow up.

    But when? When will it get to the point where suspicious individualists will have taken too much? The longer it takes, the worse it will be.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    If you don't think individuals should have the right to associate with whom they choose, then what is your proposed solution?

  • Azathoth!!||

    I DO think individuals have the right to associate with whoever they choose to. That's what I support.

    That's not where we are.

    This is where we are--

    "Leftists are allowed to refuse service to people.

    Leftistsare allowed to demand that people serve them."

    Only one segment of the population enjoys the right to anything like free association. This must end.

  • Ecoli||

    Are the Democratic goons coming for you next? Scott Adams thinks they are.

    What on Earth has happened to Democrats? Will we have a week of "cleansing" after the election in November, similar to Kristal Nacht? Not long ago I would have considered such a possibility to be absurd. Not so much anymore.

    Washington Times has an op-ed by Adams discussing this.

  • Light Horse||

    Lets start ushering Obstructionist Liberals to the Doors of "The Silent Common Sensical Deplorables" business establishments all across the land...!?

    Or we could just Turn Out The Vote, Once again in Droves of Common Decency

  • Light Horse||

    Lets start ushering Obstructionist Liberals to the Doors of "The Silent Common Sensical Deplorables" business establishments all across the land...!?

    Or we could just Turn Out The Vote, Once again in Droves of Common Decency

  • jdgalt1||

    Trump isn't the one who made "restaurant admissions policies a partisan issue." The Democrats did. To my knowledge nobody on the right has ever engaged in this kind of discrimination, though maybe they will start now.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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