Reason Podcast

Reason and Libertarianism in the Trump Era [Reason Podcast]

"Free movement of people and goods across borders are incredibly important things. And Trump is not into either of those things."


"Free movement of people and goods across borders are incredibly important things. And Trump is not into either of those things"—Katherine Mangu-Ward.

At the 10th annual International Students for Liberty Conference, Reason magazine Editor in Chief Katherine Mangu-Ward, former editor and longtime head of the Institute for Humane Studies Marty Zupan, and I discussed the history and future of Reason and libertarianism in President Donald Trump's America.

We each talked about the signature issues of the decades we were at the magazine's helm (the 1980s for Zupan, the '00s for me, and currently for Mangu-Ward) and whether libertarianism is waxing or waning.

This podcast was recorded live on Friday, February 17. Now finishing up its first decade, SFL reported that about 1,700 guests from all over the world attended this year's conference.

Produced by Mark McDaniel.

Subscribe to the Reason podcast at iTunes or click below to listen right now!

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

Follow us at Soundcloud.

Subscribe to our video channel at iTunes.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to the print edition for just $15 a year!

NEXT: The Deep State's 'Political Assassination' of Michael Flynn Was an Epic Abuse of Power (Reason Podcast)

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Is that the Fonz?

    1. No, just some pathetic loser, stuck in the 70s.

      1. ROFLMAO.

        And one who loves to accuse others of being stuck in the past at that (classic projection).

  2. Speaking strictly for myself, libertarianism is neither waxing nor waning, but it does trim regularly and shave on special occasions.

    1. You sure its hair isn’t just falling out?

      1. One does not preclude the other.

  3. I’m going to listen to this tonight, and EVERY GODDAMN WORD BETTER BE CORRECT OR I WILL BE FURIOUS.

    1. Well that subhead was some sneaky clickbait, but I mentally applauded KMW with everyone else.

  4. I tried to wax in the face of pitched opposition.

  5. Reason slowly morphs into

    1. You die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain?

    2. Reason turned up the heat on the frog pot so fast even the formerly-comfy cosmo commenters clambered clear.

      1. I’m sure the proliferation of Trumpling mouthbreathers had nothing to do with it.

        1. You’re literally correct, Hugh.

  6. Free movement of people and goods across borders are incredibly important things. And Trump is not into either of those things”?Katherine Mangu-Ward.

    Neither were Trump’s predecessors and rivals.We’ll see what he really means when and if those “big beautiful doors” and bilateral trade deals come through.

    1. Yeah, if the Clause Who’s Name We Dare Not Speak and 9th/10th Am. are any indication, the FF weren’t necessarily real big on unfettered flows of huddled masses either.

      “It Will Be a Beautiful Day When the Air Force Bombs Doctors Without Borders”

    2. “Free movement of people and goods across borders are incredibly important things.”

      Can’t disagree with that.
      There’s good-important and bad-important.

  7. When was the united states ever for open borders? This isn’t exactly a trump thing

    1. Nope, hes going to build a wall around all of the US and not let a single person in or out. No cargo ships either. NONE.

      1. Thank God they’re letting us grow our own pot, then.

      2. Nope, hes going to build a wall around all of the US and not let a single person in or out. No cargo ships either. NONE.

        But, if you’re a hotel and resort mogul and you stop anyone from moving anywhere, how are you going to keep your hotels and resorts… Oh, you were being sarcastic.

    2. In the 19th century.

  8. I’m all for free markets and free movement of people. Except for the 20K++ headloppers in the ME. Don’t want them here. It’s pretty nice to pretend bad people don’t exist. Who can argue for border security when everyone, everywhere is so nice. Well, gotta go feed my unicorn.

    1. I’m assuming they didn’t bring jihadist up in the podcast since they’re conveniently never mentioned in any of the articles.

    2. Googling seems to show that a high estimate is ~100k members in ISIS across the ME and Africa

      I think that there are some distinctions to draw. Everyone says ‘immigration’ in public discourse then talks past each other.

      There is illegal immigration:
      -people who cross the border illegally
      -people who enter on a visa then overstay
      I don’t think it’s unreasonable to want to curb this, but I would contend that a long look at streamlining the process for people who want to come and do positive things (work, start businesses) and have a way to differentiate.

      And there is legal immigration:
      -Lawful immigrants who choose to come here or get hired already and immigrate
      -asylum seekers and refugees
      The lawful immigrants should really have little to no impediments as they are beneficial and low risk, but sometimes become visa overstayers.
      Too much we hear the left (and reason) insisting that there is no downside (or outweighed by benefits) to bringing in loads of immigrants from countries where large populations of militants reside. Or to import refugees en masse and pretend that won’t have deleterious effects on the societies that have to absorb the shock.
      Those on the right will have you believe that all immigrants are bad because of the zero sum game of the labor market and because of the “bowl of skittles” effect.

      It would be nice to have the more nuance into what kind of immigration we mean then try to find some middle ground (like work visas for example).

      1. Yeah, I think the immigration laws are the real problem, but those aren’t going to get fixed because no one in the media pressures congress to fix them, and they’re the only people who can. Everyone want’s their “king” to fix everything through royal edict, and then they bitch when he makes royal edicts.

    3. Your worry about the small minority of violent Muslims reminds me of the worry that progs have about the small minority of violent gun onwers.

      1. Who said I was worried? As far as I know we do have security protocols and restrictions in place for travel from jihadiville. But only because we’re racist, not for security reasons.

      2. There is no “small minority of violent gun onwers.” There is an absolutely “NEGLIGIBLE minority of violent LEGAL gun owners”….

        1. It was a stupid comparison anyways. Try walking unescorted through a city even in broad daylight in one of those seven countries listed in the travel ban. You would be dead in an hour because you’re an American.

  9. “Free movement of people and goods across borders are incredibly important things. And Trump is not into either of those things”?Katherine Mangu-Ward.

    If libertarianism views turning the US into a third-world hell-hole as an “incredibly important thing”, one can only it dies a quick, but painful death.

    “Just cut your throat and you’ll be free!”

    “Yeah, but I’ll also be dead!”


    Remember boys and girls, freedom is faaaaabulous, darlings!

    1. Reason is only marginally libertarian at best and most of their contributors and editors equivocate on damn nearly everything libertarian excepting open borders. Haven’t you heard it’s the hill to die on?

      1. What you do not appear to comprehend is that a central tenet of Trumpism is the centrally managed and centrally planned movement of goods and people. That is collectivism. Communism. Socialism. Progressivism.

        1. I actually agree with you and I think Trump overdoes it but open borders with a welfare state is madness in my mind. Truly open borders in the USA as a matter of policy would be the absolute death of libertarianism in this country.

          1. But, essentially, what you are arguing is that more communism is what is needed to end communism.

            What is more important, liberty or the United Socialist States of America? The point is that any person who argues that liberty’s best hope rests with America is a slave.

            1. That’s not what I’m saying-I think libertarianism as a philosophy is important to liberty and that immigrants from the third world aren’t generally amenable to that philosophy. In the case of immigration, and I do realize where you’re coming from, I’m willing to compromise those principles.

              1. Please note, I am in favor of eliminating all welfare, immediately. That alone, will discourage the vast unwashed from wanting to emigrate here.

                1. That it would but that won’t happen anytime soon, if ever.

                  1. I’m willingly to forego social security, Medicare, tariffs, income taxes, estate taxes, the war on drugs, asset forfeiture, public schools, and public defense.

                    ARE YOU?

                    1. I’m not but I don’t claim purity. What you advocate is an interesting thought experiment (ancap I guess?) but it’s not realistic in my opinion.

                    2. Yes, I am an ancap.

                      Limited government is a fairly tale best relegated to the ash-heap of history, along with all of its proponents and sycophants and dependents.

                      Seriously, since 1860, government has been responsible for the forcible repatriation, genocide, murder, rape, and confiscatory taxation of billions of people.

                      How many have suffered that fate due to anarchy?

                    3. America tried to not have defense immediately after the Revolutionary War. It didn’t work.

        2. That’s what we have now and what reason regularly advocates as pragmatic policy (TPP, “Comprehensive Immigration Reform”, etc.)

          1. All the more reason to jettison it.

            You are okay with spending hundreds of billions of dollars on border enforcement and its related bureaucracies, with all of the health benefits and pensions. ICE and Homeland Security folk, particularly the uniformed variety who are not exactly the Horatio Algers or John Galts of the world, are crushing us with their collectivist demands.

        3. Or it’s a function of government’s protective responsibility.

          That’s not so say that any policy is fair play but there is merit in limiting immigration from areas that aren’t conducive to liberty without oversight or vetting.

          The goal should be to obstruct movement as little as possible while still performing due dilligence from a security standpoint. Trump’s ill-fated EO did not do this and hope that he can find a more sane policy (not that I’m holding my breath).

          1. The area least conducive to liberty is America with its collectivism and empire.

            1. You don’t think that statement is a little hyperbolic?

              While America is no libertopia and both political parties act like frat parties passing a drunk lady liberty around I look around and see there aren’t more than a handful of places more free and any where near as prosperous.

              I’m not prepared to make baby and bath water statements about how America is too far gone. At least not yet. Ask me again in 4 years.

              1. Well, what nation has over 20 trillion in debt and fast headed to double that in the next few years?

                What nation has over 1,000 military installations, outside of its borders?

                What nation has a more comprehensive electronic cage in which its subjects are incarcerated?

                What nation has more people incarcerated behind physical walls than the US?

                What nation has more laws and regulations on the books?

                Don’t imbibe the propaganda.

                1. I won’t argue with your astute examples of “American exceptionalism” here as they are mostly valid points.

                  The US at least allows you to own guns, and doesn’t have an asterisk beside “Freedom of speech” although that’s speech laws would’ve been just around the corner if Gorsich had been Hillary’s Nom.

                  I’ll concede Economic freedom is highly underrated in America anymore due to decades of cultural programming having every movie/comic book villain be an evil CEO or greedy business owner. Libertarians need to try to roll back the bad rep that profit has.

                  1. The second amendment is one thing; the tens of thousands of gun laws and regulations are quite another. The latter demonstrate that the US is not so friendly to gun ownership.

                    How about occupational licensing? What the GOP and Trump friendly types around here fail to realize is that there are more barriers to entry for most occupations and businesses here in the good ole USSA than in most other nation states.

                2. You forgot: What nation has 49 million on some sort of welfare?

                  1. Rufus, this is a libertarian site, so why should any person here get a boner over the USSA?

                3. Hitle–I mean, Zimababwe?

        4. Saying the united states is communist or socialist is disingenuous

          1. AS, it is the truth. You would not want to debate me in a public forum where the proposition is that “saying the US is communist of socialist is disingenuous” and with you arguing in favor of the proposition.

            Do you think that I am Donald Trump, unable to string together a subject, predicate, and object?

            1. No, I think you’re just unable to actually understand socialism or communism in comparison to corporatist statism.

              1. No, you do not want to come to grips with that which is socialism:

                (1) an income tax;

                (2) a progressive income tax;

                (3) an estate tax;

                (4) government control of education / compulsory government education

                (5) government control of gatekeeping into occupations, i.e., occupational licensing

                (6) government control of healthcare, whether through universal health care, single payer healthcare, certificates of need / necessity

                (7) zoning

                (8) tariffs

                (9) centrally planned / managed trade

                (10) control of currency / currency monopolization

                1. Fantastic, another pig-ignorant mindreader who arrogantly assumes he knows what I’m thinking.

                  And it’s telling that your list is wrong. This is the actual list:

                  1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
                  2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
                  3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
                  4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
                  5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
                  6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
                  7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
                  8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
                  9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
                  10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

                  Get back to me when they’re working teenagers in paper mills.

                  1. Also note Libertymike that immigration policy is mysteriously not there. Almost like you’re ignorant to the concept.

                  2. One, since when is the definition of socialism / communism cabined by that which Marx proclaimed?

                    Two, note that I did not so define socialism / communism.

                    Three, look at the venn diagram between that which I proffered and what you wrote.

                    1. One, since yours is incorrect and based on more on attempting to justify your position that actual socialist policy (the fact that you put tariffs on there alone renders your position a joke).

                      Two, you made a declarative statement as to ‘which is socialism’ and proceeded to list policies. Your premise is faulty, and see response one.

                      Three, look to history and see non-socialist system that enacted the exact same policies you suggest. To scream and stamp one’s feet and cry “SOCIALIST, SOCIALIST!” is to be a Chicken Little rendering the word meaningless.

                    2. No, it is not faulty. Again, since when is the universe of socialism cabined to what Marx defined?

                    3. Since when is the universe of socialism cabined by your idiotic definition?

                    4. The likes of Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, Tom DiLorenzo, Eric Peters, Butler Shaffer, Ludwig von Mises, and so many other anarhco-libertarian philosophers and writers would agree with me.

                      Sorry, you are ignorant.

                    5. Scream and rant like a child and render the word socialist meaningless Libertymike, the only outcome will be to render the word meaningless and your views irrelevant.

                    6. You are the one having a hard time coming to grips with the conception and application of the word. I am not screaming and ranting like a child.

                      To wit, you are the one who appears to be emotionally wedded to the concept of nation state, particularly the United States. You characterize my appellation of the US as USSA as a “childish rhetoric trick” without bothering to support your characterization. Why is it a “childish rhetoric trick?”

                    7. In addition, in the USSA, try owning real estate without paying real estate taxes. If one truly owned real estate, why would one have to pay a ransom to the city / county in which one lived? In a truly free society, i.e., one without any taint of socialism, one would not have to pay a dime to the city or the county, would one?

                      In the USSA, try adding another building or addition to your existing building without obtaining permission from the planning board, the zoning board, and the building inspector. In a truly free society, i.e., one without any taint of socialism, one would not have to say pretty please to communist boards.

                      In the USSA, try starting a business out of your home in a “residentially zoned” area. In a truly free society, i.e., one without any taint of socialism, one would be able to operate a business out of one’s home without having to say pretty please to the communist boards.

                    8. In a truly free society, i.e., one without any taint of socialism, one would not have to pay a dime to the city or the county, would one?

                      Only if you’re ignorant enough to assume any kind of taxation is socialist. It’s not.

                      one without any taint of socialism, one would not have to say pretty please to communist boards.

                      Not socialist. Unless you’re stupid enough to argue that 16th century approval boards were ‘socialist’.

                      one without any taint of socialism, one would be able to operate a business out of one’s home without having to say pretty please to the communist boards.

                      NOT. SOCIALIST. Unless you’re stupid enough to argue that guilds are socialist.

                      in the USSA,

                      …and you lose multiple points for the childish rhetoric tricks, we’re done here.

                    9. Thanks John.

              2. Oooh! Sic burn!
                Seriously “Do you think that I am Donald Trump, unable to string together a subject, predicate, and object?”
                What an arrogant dick.

              3. Oooh! Sic burn!
                Seriously “Do you think that I am Donald Trump, unable to string together a subject, predicate, and object?”
                What an arrogant dick.

                1. Why would you asseverate that I am an arrogant prick given that Donald Trump, and not I, have stiffed thousands of tradesmen through the years?

                  Have I been married three times?

                  Am I a serial prevaricator?

                  Do I go with the bleached orange comb-over?

    2. The year is 2099CE. After a timeline stretching across nearly two centuries of research, waste, fraud and abuse, cheap fusion power is finally a reality. Freed from the chains of Earth’s gravity and morons, libertarians swallow their pride and work together to build the starship that will take them away to the planet Galt. Liberty Ship 1(LS1), also known as the “True Scotsman,” has pushed the limits of technology to reach the heliopause, where they will be the first humans to leave the solar system. Pushing out into interstellar space with a dull but surprising *pop*, the crew of the True Scotsman celebrate their libertarian moment.

      Unfortunately, a moment is all they have. Proximity alarms sound, the celebrants quickly move to their duty stations. Sensors show a object approaching at extreme speed. Evasive maneuvers are initiated but physics is a bitch. The True Scotsman has no chance and is vaporized on impact.

      In the distance, Exit Control Drone SOL99 powers down weapons systems and resumes scanning for illegals.

      1. Nice collectivist fantasy.

        1. somebody discovered a new word

          1. What word is that?

              1. You going to the Riveria soon?

      2. To be fair, I wouldn’t want us in my neighbourhood either.

      3. Poul Anderson wrote a series of stories about a libertarian space colony, published in book form as “New America”.

        Basically the series ends when another colony ship from Earth full of statists arrives. The people of New America think about destroying it since they know it will mean the end of their way of life on the planet, but decide against it out of principle.

        1. New America: A Cucktarian Manifesto
          “Muh principles of freedom require handing the world to the Statists”

          Art imitates life. Or at least Reason.

          1. Conflating murdering people with keeping them out of the country is about as disingenuous as an argument can be. I would expect to see such hyperbole out of a radical anti-border anarchist, but I guess lazy arguments can be had by all.

            1. I didn’t conflate killing statist invaders with deporting them.

              I assert the right to defend freedom against statists.

  10. Wait, you mean it’s not a podcast about readers and listeners migrating to other websites?

    1. Now that’s funny.

  11. OT: Cops doing cop stuff.


    OT, is Evan McMullin actually this ridiculous and pathetic or some kind of a Andy Kaufman like long con?

    1. I don’t know who either of those people are.

      1. The guy with the enormous fucking brain pan is a neocon Mormon the establishment Reps ran against Trump (and Johnson who stood to do fairly well in Utah) at the last minute to try to throw the election to the House. He’s a deep state swine and a scumbag.

        1. I see that he’s also a former CIA operations officer so that all makes sense.

      2. Fun fact: Andy Kaufman is currently in the White House.

        1. I need more of this conspiracy theory. This would be Andy’s magnum opus.

    2. He’s a piece of work alright and he just won’t go the fuck away.

    3. I’m reminded of this story … and rereading that made me all

      1. Do click the Heat Street link in that story, preferably by pasting it at

  13. Open question to pure (unrestrained borders) libertarians here.

    A country (call it South Korea) unanimously decides it wants to be “libertarian” politically.
    The country has a hyper-violent, antogonistic country (call it North Korea) on its border.

    To be “libertarian”, must South Korea allow unrestricted migration of peoples from North Korea to South Korea?
    Or, phrased differently, is it permissible for South Korea to control the migration of peoples across its Northern border and still be “libertarian”?

    1. Racist! ~ Cosmotarians

    2. Yea see this is why open borders is purely perfect utopia type thinking.

      1. With that attitude, you’ll never know the warm feeling of smug self-righteousness.

    3. What if china feels it is getting a bit crowded and dumps a few hundred million into ships to the usa

      1. Thomas Friedman will have an orgasm.

    4. Just a follow up. Any open borderers want to chime in?

      1. They never want to get near an actual argument. They prefer lobbing “Racist!” from afar.

        1. They never want to get near an actual argument.

          And you do? Apparently, to you, “actual arguments” are lazy conflations (per above) and treating a lack of answering your beck and call as a lack of having any argument.

          On the matter of genuine and well thought out “actual arguments”, tarran has argued a pro-open borders position from both principled and pragmatic standpoints, but it seems he too has left H&R.

          Pragmatically, the North-South Korea divide is an example with narrow applicability and very poor predictive power. The North Koreans are an oppressed people ruled by a hereditary dictatorship that openly executes its high officials in gruesome ways for sport, maintains numerous concentration camps for political dissidents, suppresses just about every form of expression there is, has no private ownership whatsoever, and is otherwise a totalitarian hellhole. To suggest that the average North Korean would, upon moving to the South, try to recreate such a system is absurd. Whatever “sincere” attempt at communism the North may have been making before the latter half of Kim Il-sung’s reign, never mind his descendants, nobody in that country has living memory of it. North Korea today makes the USSR in the late 1980s look like a liberal, capitalist country. If emigres from the Soviet Union were well known for harboring well founded ill will toward socialism, what reason is there to believe that a North Korean emigre would be an avowed socialist?

          1. They never want to get near an actual argument.

            And you do?

            Still waiting for Reason to make a real argument explaining how importing statists is the way to defend liberty in the US.

            Shikha tried, in her usual Shikha fashion. “Trump is the Devil, and immigrants oppose Trump, therefore more immigrants makes us more free.”

            Shikha, when the walls fell.

        2. On the question of principles, yes South Korea can restrict migration and still be libertarian, although they are not libertarian on other questions so saying they’d “still be libertarian” assumes a counterfactual. Modern day South Korea is a liberal democracy, and that is far better than most of the alternatives, but liberal democracy and libertarianism are not the same thing.

          The real question is why would they restrict migration southward? It is the North and not the South that is stopping North Koreans from migrating. The Norks know that, if their people were allowed to leave freely, they are not going to come back nor are they going to harbor sentiments for the North. The only way emigration would be an effective tactic for the North would be if they expelled political dissidents (thus removing a problem from their own borders) or sent agents to the South (to engage in intelligence gathering and/or subterfuge).

          The problem with the former option is that it sends people with the desire to topple the North to a country that has the means to do so, and the problem with the latter option is that most Nork agents will end up expatriated, imprisoned, or turned into double agents.

      2. Twelve hours later… well, so much for that. You tease!

    5. North Korea is only that way because of blowback so South Korea needs to let them in and get what they have coming

      1. ….Which will be nothing but happiness and prosperity as long as South Korea provides enough food trucks for the Northerners to work in

  14. Libertymike in your ancap vision

    How do you respect and determine property rights? Like now most property folks have was someone else’s originally.

    With no state and taxes how do you keep these? Do others just respect them no worries what so ever?

      1. How many soldiers you have?

        1. When you soldiers do i have like do i own?

          1. How many are under your control. The more you have, the more land you can probably claim.

              1. I’d say you will do pretty well in ancap America then. Need an advisor? Or someone to train your servant girls?

      2. I think technology advanced nation-states should cooperate in defusing land mines.

        /Emily Litella

        But not as a moral obligation.

        /Ayn Rand

    1. Fun fact: Libertymike is smarter than you.

      Fun fact: Libertymike is batshit crazy.

      Fun fact: you can learn from that man.

    2. Actually, this is a legit question. Apparently someone trolled Reddit a while back by saying “taxation is theft” in an unexpected place with a lot of lefties in it (I didn’t see the thread; this is something I heard about from someone that I’d like to argue the point with, but am smart enough to keep my mouth shut for now; the guy was definitely actually trolling by the sound of it tho).

      One of the responses the lefties brought up to the guy was “how can property exist without government?”

      Thinking about it later, if I had decided to start an argument in that situation, I’m not sure how I could have addressed that point. Only thing I could think of would be to tell him to try to give a dog a treat and then take it away, showing that animals with no real concept of government do have a concept of property. But I’m not sure how well that follows.

      Reasonites, how could one respond to that argument more effectively?

      1. I am not a Randroid, but she does explain the problem:…..ights.html

      2. Property is a convention, its specifics and boundaries figured out over time as parties come into conflict and disputes are settled through mediation. Robert Ellickson’s Order Without Law is an empirical study of this process, documenting how the particular property rights and obligations were formed by the push-pull among ranchers in Shasta County. But this could be seen further back in history, particularly in the American West and medieval Europe (obviously, the phenomenon is clearer when there is little or no government around). David Friedman uses Schelling points to explain it in game theory terms.

        We might say that property cannot exist without law, but government/the state is not synonymous with the law.

      3. “how can property exist without government?”

        Two travelers meet in the woods. Anyone puzzled that the stuff you’ve got is yours, and the stuff I’ve got is mine?

  15. John titor isnt saying any taxation is socialist like the progs saying we should embrace socialism cause roads

    1. My god, look at all this socialism…from two thousand years ago.

      Socialism is a specific ideological idea with a long term goal (a goal they will forever fail at of course). Just because the king is demanding a tax on your goods doesn’t mean his long term goal is the DESTRUCTION OF THE BOURGEOIS ESTABLISHMENT and the CREATION OF THE GLORIOUS WORKERS’ PARADISE.

      Bellowing about how everything is socialist isn’t an argument, it just renders the word as useless as fascist. Screaming socialist about the United States now causes people to…think socialism’s not that bad. Good long term strategic plan people.

      1. The problem is that there are (at least) two operating definitions of “socialism”. The Marxist one, and the “social democracy” one. By the former, the U.S. is not remotely socialist (nor is any other “developed country”). By the latter, the U.S. is pretty socialist. The latter usage is common amongst “social democracy” apologists. It is worth pointing out that the U.S. has a vast “social safety” net, a powerful regulatory apparatus, centralized banking, minimum wage, state-enforced collective bargaining, anti-trust law, bankruptcy and personal debt restructuring, etc. It is important to note these things because leftists constantly agitating for “social democracy” need to be reminded that we are already there. Thus they are either arguing for the Marxist kind of socialism, or they do not know what they are arguing for.

        1. There are many conceptions and definitions of socialism. It is a mistake, intellectually, to posit that the conception and definition of socialism is cabined by what Marx wrote.

          Thus, to be sure, you are right in asserting that there are “at least” two operating definitions of socialism. In a December 4, 2015 post at, Ryan McMaken penned the following:

          “To get a sense of what has constituted socialism, historically speaking, it is a mistake to rely on Marxism as the benchmark. Marxism was JUST ONE TYPE (emphasis added for Johnny “Tulpa” Titor) of socialism in the 19th century, and it failed to gain traction in western Europe.”

          McMaken goes on to cite Eduard Bernstein, a socialist theorist who advocated for the use of democratic institutions to regulate capitalists by means of income taxes, minimum wage laws, government pensions and the like for the proposition that limiting the ambit of socialism to Marx’ conception of the same is ahistorical. He cites the fact that many supporters of social security and other redistribution schemes are only fooling themselves when they asseverate that those programs and the taxes that finance them are not socialism as social security and Medicare and minimum wage laws are hard core socialism.

          1. McMaken reminds the likes of Johnny “Tulpa” Titor that the amount of wealth redistributed by means of regulation also constitutes socialism.

            McMaken also reminds us that when measured in the total amount of wealth redistributed, the good ole USSA ranks second among nations in the west.

            He concludes:

            “The fact of the matter is that government spending on old-age benefits and health care is so immense in the US that by no measure could the United States be deemed ‘not socialist’ if we’re going to turn around the next minute and call Canada or even Norway ‘socialist'”.

          2. It is a mistake, intellectually, to posit that the conception and definition of socialism is cabined by what Marx wrote.

            Moreso because Marx himself borrowed the term. While ole’ Karl was still formulating his theories, Bastiat was talking about socialists of the non-Marxist variety.

            1. Where I wrote “moreso”, I meant something like “indeed, also”.

  16. Fun fact: I’ve masturbated out of spite.

    Also, I’ve masturbated to the thought of licking a butthole.

    1. I think you comment out of spite

      1. Fun fact: a bar called Good Times did not provide good times. However, it did provide a very drunk man pretending he had had a stroke, ordering a beer and food, and running out on the bill.

    2. I’ve masturbated to the leg space between the socks and skirt of Elizabeth Montgomery, while watching Bewitched, more times than I can count. That fleshy spot, just above the knee, drives me crazy with lust.

      But that’s boring. I tried to read “Portnoy’s Complaint” a couple of months ago but couldn’t get interested.

  17. The Feebs foil a diabolical terrorist operation plotted by a criminal mastermind. The white-dude-with-cornrows hairstyle belies his criminal geniusosity. He’s only pretending he has an IQ of about 85. Good thing three of the four plotters in this conspiracy were undercover FBI agents.

    1. Good thing three of the four plotters in this conspiracy were undercover FBI agents.

      Individuals working for the F.B.I. seem to be protecting us, Jerryskids.

  18. John Titor raped me.

    Then he went back in time before the first rape occurred so that he could rape me again for the first time.

    1. That’s a lie. I raped you, and then I traveled back in time and made you fall in love with me, just to make the future rape even worse.

      Also, why won’t you return my calls, you dick.

  19. You’re on top the game with that, Crusty. Did you see her panties?

  20. The concept of “Property” has deep evolutionary roots in animal behavior, specifically territoriality and the acquisition and defense of resources (primarily food).

  21. Ryder . I just agree… Amanda `s story is something… last monday I got a top of the range Alfa Romeo from having made $5127 this last 5 weeks and-in excess of, 10k lass-month . it’s by-far my favourite-job Ive ever done . I started this four months/ago and pretty much straight away started bringin home over $74, per-hour . hop over to this site

  22. Ryder . I just agree… Amanda `s story is something… last monday I got a top of the range Alfa Romeo from having made $5127 this last 5 weeks and-in excess of, 10k lass-month . it’s by-far my favourite-job Ive ever done . I started this four months/ago and pretty much straight away started bringin home over $74, per-hour . hop over to this site

  23. “Free movement of people and goods across borders are incredibly important things. And Trump is not into either of those things.”

    Countries have borders and borders should be enforced. I’m sorry (not really) The Don is enforcing existing immigration law. *sheds fake tear*

  24. The audio link to the episode (the link to reasontv_audio_263862.mp3) appears to be broken. That also means everyone subscribed to the RSS podcast feed is getting a broken episode.

    1. I see it’s fixed now. Thanks!

  25. I looked at the check for $8628 , I didnt believe that…my… father in law was like actualie taking home money in there spare time on there computar. . there sisters roommate haz done this for under 17 months and just cleard the morgage on there apartment and got a gorgeous Chevrolet Corvette . go to websit=========

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.