Reason Podcast

That Time Ayn Rand Threatened Reason with Legal Action: Podcast

One of Reason's founding editors, attorney Manny Klausner, tells tales from the early days of the magazine of "Free Minds and Free Markets."




Can you imagine a lawsuit called Rand v. Reason, pitting the author of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged against the nation's only magazine of "Free Minds and Free Markets"? Well, it almost happened in the 1970s.

In the latest Reason Podcast, one of our founding editors, Manny Klausner, tells me that tale, along with many stories of the early days of Reason and the libertarian movement. Attending New York University law school in the late 1950s and early 1960s, Klausner studied with Ludwig von Mises, represented the libertarian wing of the fledgling Conservative Party, and came under the influence of firebrand economist Murray Rothbard as well. While working at Reason, Klausner (archive here) produced memorable interviews with the likes of Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg, economist Thomas Sowell, '70s self-help guru Robert Ringer, and future President Ronald Reagan.

Founded in 1968 by Lanny Friedlander (1947–2011), Reason is celebrating its 50th anniversary by hosting a series of in-depth conversations with past editors about how the magazine has changed since its founding, what we've gotten right and wrong over the years, and what the future holds for believers in "free minds and free markets." Go here to listen to interviews with Robert W. Poole, Marty Zupan, Virginia Postrel, Matt Welch, Katherine Mangu-Ward, and me about the life and times of Reason.

Along with Poole and Tibor Machan (1939-2016), Klausner was one of the principals of Reason Enterprises, which bought the magazine from the Friedlander in 1971. He was also a co-founder of the nonprofit Reason Foundation, established in 1978, which continues to publish this website and podcast. As an attorney, Klausner participated in Bush v. Gore, the case that settled the 2000 election, and successfully defended Matt Drudge in a defamation suit brought by Clinton adviser Sidney Blumenthal. He's been active in the Federalist Society and has served as general counsel to the Individual Rights Foundation.

Subscribe, rate, and review our podcast at iTunes. Listen at SoundCloud below:

Audio production by Ian Keyser.

Photo credit: Jim Epstein.

Don't miss a single Reason Podcast! (Archive here.)

Subscribe at iTunes.

Follow us at SoundCloud.

Subscribe at YouTube.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

NEXT: Is Trump vs. Acosta the Iran-Iraq War of 2018?: 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. Asking the state to settle your dispute. Sad day in Galt's Gulch.

    1. Libertarians are fine with tiny and limited government settling disputes via jury trial.

      You dont have to use the courts. You can settle disputes yourself.

      1. I'm not aware of any evidence that the court system in Galt's Gulch involved juries (which usually imply forced labor). Judge Narragansett appears to have held bench trials for whatever disputes existed that needed them.

        1. If you don't know that jurists are there voluntarily, you're even crazier than the goober you replied to.
          Probably even a Paulista.

        1. Flyink carz FTW!

      1. The only problem most Libertarians have with social security is that it is mandatory. The voluntary version of it is buying US treasury bonds. But whether it is mandatory or voluntary buy-in, the bonds have been bought and the US owes payment on that loan.

    2. "Asking the state to settle your dispute. Sad day in Galt's Gulch."

      And why is that? Objectivist politics are minarchist, admitting the role of the state to adjudicate on contracts when problems arise, as they naturally do between parties possessed of even the best of intentions. Judge Narragansett had pride of place in the Gulch.

      The Gulch ain't no anarchist utopia.

    3. Ths is not Galt's Gulch, which Ayn Rand said could never work for a society, only a community of like-minded individuals. (aka individualism!) The ignorance of Galt's Gulch fostered the zany concept of a libertopia which is the exact opposite of a free society.

      In a libertarian society, we all live in gated communities with private police forces and competing court systems. John Galt's statue stands in every town square.

      In a free society, Galt's Gulch exists next to a Marxist commune ? lesbians up the street from a community of Christian Fundies ?. retired Catholic priests across the field from Wiccans. Each community would be voluntarily populated. And that statue would be Voltaire, inscribed: "I disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

      Liberty is a mutual benefit society. Not a members only Country Club.
      How did a movement founded on rational individualism wind up promoting and defending total tribal conformity -- ruled by Mary Ruwart's 1500+ diktats for a libertarian society?

      That's why a Cato Survey, conducted by a top pollster found that 59% of all Americans self-identify with libertarian values ... but 91% of THEM reject the libertarian label (which now means the exact opposite of libertarian values.)

  2. Reason is more Leftists and Anarchists than Libertarians, so there's that.

    1. Umm, promoters of Donald Trump's tyranny are hardly a reliable source on libertarians. (lol)

      Libertarians have been fiscally conservative and SOCIALLY liberal for nearly a half-century now.
      This has always pissed of you and your alt-right.

      Just keep showing your ID to buy bread ... and raking forests. We'll keep promoting individual liberty. Some of us.

    2. Hihn here is a Lefty loon.

      1. I suppose he could be. But in your typical dumbfuckery and bullying, you proved ALL my points

        1) Only you alt-right wackos say that fiscally conservative and SOCIALLY liberal = a "lefty loon."
        2) That confirms what I called your total ignorance of libertarianism for the past 50 years.
        3) What you really defend is your blatant statism, of extreme social conservatism.

        Kinda funny, when you also brag about suckling the gummint teat because you're ENTITLED!

        That makes your hated of libertarianism, you being the exact opposite - fiscally liberal and socially conservative.

      2. See...hihn is a Lefty loon.

        1. That was pathetic. Even for you, entitlement mooch.

  3. I often find myself defending Rand when my progressive friends express criticism. Typically progressives will say that Rand had a half-baked philosophy that amounted to little more than a celebration of selfishness. "However," I tell them, "Rand was a staunch supporter of abortion access. That's not a selfish position at all ? in fact, it's a selfless, compassionate, humanitarian one!"

    This approach is effective in convincing progressives that the greatest minds of American libertarianism aren't as bad as they've been told. It works about as well as reminding them that the Koch Brothers support open borders.

      1. She could spot Lefties trying to pass of as Libertarians though.

        She targeted Reason well.

        1. The central point is she rejected anarchism and much of the antipathy, dismissal and outright hatred of Rand is from the anarchist wing of libertarianism who in their conceit have taken Objectivism to justify anarchism when it does not such thing and which was expressly rejected by Rand.

          The anarchists have tried to hijack the whole damn philosophy to save themselves the trouble of writing their own. Rothbard looms large in all this and was the prototype. I guess Rand might call them second-handers.

          1. Garbage. Rand was opposed to hippies who were calling themselves libertarians and trying to hijack her philosophy. That and she was fundamentally opposed to the concept of political parties. Today's libertarians are nothing like the hippie anarchists of the 60's and 70's. You guys keep calling the writers at Reason anarchists without backing up your claims. Give evidence that they are truly anarchists or go fuck off back to Breitbart or wherever you came from. You're trying very hard to shoehorn DT into the libertarian philosophy and I resent it. You're fucking up the only place I had to hear intelligent political discourse.

            1. Wow. Almost exactly true!!! But she did totally oppose anarchy, especially the crazed Rothbardians who preached that we have no right to form governments. THEY get to overrule 350 million Americans, which is laughably authoritarian.

              The anarchist libs of the 60s and 70s were an even tinier faction than they are today
              Rand defended hippies overall, because she knew the difference between state communism and voluntary communes. Said the only mistake hippie communes made was to think they had to become farmers. There are now hundreds, perhaps thousands, of smaller businesses who are literal communes (not just employe owned, and communal for both their business and housing).

              On government, not widely known, Rand was VERY Jeffersonian, like "consent of the governed". One of her core principles actually expanded that, "the moral is the chose."

              The blasphemers you are addressing also BELEEB that only lefty loons are socially liberal
              The anarchy is simply ignorance.

            2. Without backing up my claims? The Editor in Chief of Reason, Katherine Mangu-Ward is an anarchist:

              "I'm an anarchist because government tends toward ineptitude and consent is extremely important. If you describe yourself as a libertarian, you probably agree with both of those propositions."


              And she's not the only one, fuckface. Try doing some basic research before you blow so hard.

              Rand's objections to anarchism are as valid now as they were then:

              Hippies my ass.

              1. Without backing up my claims?

                NOWANDA FAILS AGAIN! (omfg)

                The Editor in Chief of Reason, Katherine Mangu-Ward is an anarchist:

                That's just one!!! (smirk)

                And she's not the only one, fuckface.

                PROVE IT, LOSER

                Try doing some basic research before you blow so hard.

                PUT UP OR SHUT UP, PUNK.

                Rand's objections to anarchism are as valid now as they were then:

                So are mine!! But I'm not a full of shit intimidator (and she'd HATE you)
                PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

              2. Oohh nice... Fuckface. I like it tough guy. Interesting debate between her and Gillespie. I missed that one. So what if she is an anarchist? Isn't anarchy the exact extreme opposite of communism or marxist socialism albeit totally impractical? Who do who you really hate, the anarchists or the marxists? Can't have it both ways. Seems anarchists and minarchisists and libertarians share the common goal of reducing government involvement in our lives as much as possible. Isn't that why you're here? If not, why the fuck are you here? IMO anarchists have the right idea but it is not a realistic goal because it requires all people to share a similar mindset and engage with each other fairly, which is not going to happen any time soon.

                1. "So what if she is an anarchist?"

                  I am fairly certain the so what factor is that you were just exposed for talking out of your ass. Which you proceded to do again when you shifted the goalposts and started to prattle out of your posterior again.

                  1. Prattling from one's posterior is what we do here. Are you new?

                2. You've been owned, fuckface, and all you've got is, "So what if she is an anarchist?"

                  That's both hilarious and pathetic; not an easy double to pull off.

                  Now, shoo, child.

                  1. Hope you're having fun beating off over your win. Congratulations. You win. You proved one editor is able to debate as an anarchist. That make you happy tough guy? If you actually believe the majority of Reason editors actually think Anarchy is possible or sustainable than you're as stupid as you think I am. Also what is it you find so threatening about the concept of anarchy? You don't have to worry about them running for office or throwing you in a re-education camp? Certainly, they cant be as bad as lefties and socialists? Just curious

                    1. The comards among us reveal themselves. by running away from their own words and claims.

      2. It's important to remember that Russia wasn't always the rogue nation it is now under Putin. For instance, the Russia of decades ago, where Bernie Sanders honeymooned, wasn't a bad place. It was only after 2012 (when Obama unleashed that delicious zinger against Romney) that Russia emerged as the greatest force for evil on the planet.


        1. Likewise, the US wasn't always the rogue nation it has been under Bush, Obama and (to a lesser extent) Trump.

        2. Umm, the liberal-tarian genius never heard of Lenin, Marx and Stalin!

          1. "liberal-tarian" was the clue.

          1. We already assumes DesignNate would also be ignorant of Lenin, Marx and Stalin.
            When will Trumpism we acknowledged for what it is, a severe mental disorder? The flip side of TDS.
            Left - Right = Zero

      3. I just re-read most of Atlas Shrugged. There was plenty that I liked, but she strikes me as not a little emotionally effed up. Just read the love scenes. Not to mention a crapload of mysticism, which makes no sense from her stated perspective. Still, considering how few honor individualism these days, an important POV.

        1. I just re-read most of Atlas Shrugged.

          Let me guess which 60+ pages you skipped...

          1. When you guys finally seize absolute power over society... Sorry, I mean, "give us all freedom"... Will you force us to listen to endless speeches, or will it be optional? Asking for a Cuban friend.

              1. Mmm, yes, "asshole." Le mot juste. Must be glorious to have such a happy knack for clarity and concision.

                1. How would you kNow, you literally just admitted you have a tiny dick and you forgot to log into a sock account.

                  You must be PISSED!!! LOLOLOLOL

                  1. The thing about having a huge cock is that it provides a lot of psychological buttressing. It might be the reason I'm able to hang around these parts after all the abuse.

                    1. I'm sure having a rooster helps you deal with the tiny penis you admitted you have Tiny Tony!!!

                    2. In case anyone is paying attention, despite having a famously large penis, I'm the only one in this conversation implying that having a small penis is a bad thing.

                    3. Don't see that, do see you pathetically trying to make people think you have a big dick ON THE INTERNET!!

                      LOLOLOLOL YOU SMALL TINY TONY!!$

                    4. I said famously. You must not be up on pop culture. Let's fill you in:

                      Brad Pitt has a famously small penis.
                      Tony has a famously large penis.

                      One of these men is actually famous, so interpret that as you will.

                    5. Tiny Tony - "No I swear, my dick is huge AND I'm a millionaire astronaut nuclear physicist!!"

                      Ahahahah you're small and it's obvious!!!

                    6. Middle class, in publishing. With a huge dick.

                    7. Lolololol YOU'RE STILL DOING IT!!


                      PROTEST MORE SHORT STUFF!!

                    8. This is the longest solicitation for a dick pic I've ever been through.

                    9. And would be the shortest dick pic anyone ever saw!!!

                      Ahahahaha you are obviously tiny and hate it!!!

                    10. It's just a guess, but I'm pretty sure you hang out here despite all the abuse talking about your penis because you're in love with us, you need us, you want us, etc. "I hate you, don't leave me", etc.

                    11. I already told you. I hang out here because I find talking to people who agree with me boring, and you're the only rightwingers on the internet who don't spend all their time talking about how black people are monkeys.

                      Speaking of black people, one told me that I had a big dick. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

                    12. I'm sorry, but my theory better explains the obvious phallic obsession going on here. But, that's why experts suggest people don't diagnose themselves.

                    13. Tulpa totally started it.

                    14. "one told me that I had a big dick. "

                      Ahahahahahahah omfg YOU ARE STILL AT IT!!


                    15. He CAME HOME FROM WORK and rushed in here to INSIST HIS DICK WASN'T TINY!! HE SAYS A BLACK GUY TOLD HIM SO!!!


                      AHAHAHAHAHAH now EVERYONE KNOWS you have a tiny dick and IT PISSES YOU OFF!!!

                    16. Hey, a black guy did tell me I have a large penis.

                      Granted, he used a sarcastic tone of voice, but I'll take it.

        2. Dagny was kinda a slut.
          Not that there's anything wrong with that.

          It was a good book, but you can only read the same speech over and over and over and over and over again before it gets old.

          1. Dagny was kinda a slut.

            Only to psychotic right-wingers.;

            1., she was pretty much a slut. Then again, so was Rand.

              Not imposing moral judgement here, they just liked sex more than most chicks.

              1., she was pretty much a slut. Then again, so was Rand.

                "Only to psychotic right-wingers.;"

              2. "Most chicks"? I think that you need to meet more of the right kind of chicks.

                1. ^ This.

                  Is Red Tony saying he does NOT like sex??? (lol)

        3. I call it poli-sci-fi . Lot of deus ex machina .

          I think her best was her first : We The Living .

      4. Diane made a fool of herself again. BELEEBS Russians have been the greatest defenders of individual liberty for the past 75 years or so. And that a gulag is an island vacation resort. Whole defending the tyranny of Donald Trump.

    1. Jesus Christ, dude, give it a rest.

  4. I was in the Objectivist movement at the time, and made the mistake of mentioning that I had subscribed to Reason (I still have the early issues) and was told it was immoral to interact with these guys. Being an early twenty-something I was scared and dropped my subscription. Restarted after leaving my home town (where the inner circle true believers often came to visit) and restarted it. Have been reading it ever since. Still think it's the best libertarian site around, even though some of the commenters are not to my taste these days. But then, Shikha and Robbie are friends, which I guess makes me a Leftie 🙂

    1. told it was immoral to interact with these guys

      Which is why I'm not an Objectivist

      1. Pretty much. I'm a libertarian/anarchist because I don't know what's best for people (and want to be left alone). Objectivists seem to think that they do. Even if they don't want to use government force to enforce their ideas, it's still annoying.

        1. "Zeb|11.21.18 @ 4:17PM|#

          Pretty much. I'm a libertarian/anarchist because I don't know what's best for people (and want to be left alone). "

          Zeb|11.21.18 @ 4:14PM|#

          Jesus Christ, dude, give it a rest.

          But you're apparently too much of an asshole to afford others that courtesy.

        2. They seem to have no problem using force to enforce their ideas on countries in the Middle East.

          1. That's Israel. For thousands of years now.

      2. Which is why I'm not an Objectivist

        These days, neither would Rand.
        Her spirited defense of government, consent of the governed and will of the people was quite Jeffersonian.
        And the precise opposite of today's Objectivists, Miseans, Rothbardians, an-caps and movement libertarians (who are now actually authoritarian).

        I attended some Objectivism meetings early on, and vomited. Nearly half the women and Rand-style hairdos and used cigarette holders .... while extolling the virtues of individualism!

        Objectivism is now as fucked up as libertarianism. Both mostly cults,

        1. And the precise opposite of today's Objectivists, Miseans, Rothbardians, an-caps and movement libertarians (who are now actually authoritarian).

          In what alternate universe la-la land are ancaps/Rothbardians authoritarian? I mean, I've heard some interesting rants about anarcho-capitalism, but all of them not only miss the mark they (generally) rely upon nothing but strawman arguments to defeat. So, please, enlighten us.

          1. In what alternate universe la-la land are ancaps/Rothbardians authoritarian?


            1) They say we have no right to form voluntary associations (which government is, ours anyhow)
            2) Running for public office is either (a) lusting for power, or (b) conspiring with statists. (lol).
            3) Consent of the governed MUST be unanimous (any ONE of their thugs can overrule 350 million Americans!)

            In other words, an anarchic society will spring from the ground. spontaneously -- on its own ... so any action to create one is a mortal sin ... just be patient.
            And BELEEB!

            So, please, enlighten us.

            Anything else?
            (Since your apparent total ignorance of issue. you'll likely respond with another snippy hissy fit, which shall be ignored)

            If you wish to know what anarchism means, in the libertarian sphere, start with the Dallas Accord.

            1. Fuck me, I should have known it was you Hihn. And you didn't disappoint me with your bullshit strawmen. Try again, fuckchop.

              1. You ALSO failed to rebut a word I said, just another bellowing blowhard.
                I don't know who Hihn is. But you just proved that I publicly humiliated your ignorance, TWICE.

                Now THREE times! (sneer)

                Will be see another bellowing FAIL? The goober's fourth fuckup?

                1. "I don't know who Hihn is. But you just proved that I publicly humiliated your ignorance, TWICE."

                  Are you for real? Is this like some multi-personality thing where each does not know the other exists but they are all the same?

                  1. JoeBlow123, too, FAILS to rebut a word I said, so you're now a proven loser, punk.

                    But if it makes you feel manly .....

    2. "But then, Shikha and Robbie are friends, which I guess makes me a Leftie"
      I don't know about leftie, but it certainly makes you something. Bananas perhaps...

      1. Bananas? Or just another mindless conformist who beleebs he's an individualist?

  5. This story highlights a problem I've noticed with Libertarians in general. We tend to be somewhat prickly rugged individualists. As such, we easily find fault with others in ways that more collectivist sorts don't.

    It's not unusual for a Libertarian to hear a statement by a fellow Libertarian, misunderstand something that was said, and immediately turn around and savage their most natural ally in preference over their actual opponents.

    As long as we continue to do this, our political opponents will have a much easier time than they should in defeating us.

    1. No true Libertarian would think this.

      1. True, but so few of us remain.
        What he described is the authoritarian conformity that has crippled the movement.
        How long since there's been a libertarian voice even mentioning governance? How many decades?
        I recently began using Microsoft's News App, which includes libertarianism as a topic to follow, Fucking scary. 90% of it is different versions of what libertarianism is -- one even surmised there are several hundred flavors of libertarianism. That is a cult. Their ideal society is all like them. Exactly like Jim Jone's People's Temple,. the Moonies and the Davidians/

        All of them too stupid to grasp that NO philosophy of individual liberty could possibly have any ideology at all.
        This is why we lose. Progressives have been kicking our ass for decades, in the Court of Public Opinion ... while tribal cultists babble about a libertarian moment. This SHOULD be our time. Americans are open to even radical change, some even eager. But we have no policy solutions to promote. None at all. Just theories, slogans and and swamp gas. The Eve of Destruction.

  6. Jesus vs. Pat Robertson
    Graham vs. McCain
    Lanny Davis vs. Clinton
    Engels vs. Marx
    That guy who holds the purse in The Veep vs. the Veep

    1. Gary.
      His name is Gary

  7. That is a lot of intellectual flimflam squeezed into four paragraphs.

    1. So your dick AND your brain are small Tiny Tony!!!

  8. Can you imagine a lawsuit called Rand v. Reason, pitting the author of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged against the nation's only magazine of "Free Minds and Free Markets"?

    Not THAT Reason, back before Reason helped lead the total collapse of the movement -- which is now a cult as proven even by Cato, who found the libertarian brand rejected by 91% of libertarians.

    In marketing terms, the brand is "toxic" -- literally a threat to the brand's product or service. LibertarianISM (the ideology) totally.rejected by libertarIANS (the values) As progressives have been kicking our ass on Taxes, Health Care and the Economy for decades, in the Court of Public Opinion.

    "Of thee I sang"


      1. I don't know who Hihn is, but I do enjoy making an ass of your nothing-but-fuck-offery, punk.
        For those with an adult mind. Here's the link to Cato's survey. (smirk)

        In Cato's own words: They commissioned a Brand survey from Zogby Polling,a top independent pollster. Does a brand enhance or detract from the product or service? First, they found 59% self-identify with libertarian values.

        "In our Zogby survey we found that only 9 percent of voters with libertarian views identify themselves that way." -David Boaz and David Kirby (page search for the words)

        So the libertarian label is rejected by 91% of libertarians.
        In marketing terms, the libertarian label is "toxic" to the product (individual liberty).

        Now we have -- the same as everyone else -- the doers and the talkers. Also like everyone else, the talkers can't DO anything. So they attack those do, or who even try.

        They are authoritarians of a different stripe.They eschew force. So their ideal society will be achieved by talk .. and insults ... and self-righteous arrogance. The self-righteousness causes me to label them as Libertarian Fundamentalists. Precisely like Christian and Islamic Fundamentalists, as the worst threat to their own movements.

        Will he'll screech "fuck off" again? STILL refusing to accept reality?

        1. You know, I left this place for about a week because I was off doing other stuff, and I was thinking as I came back today, "has Hihn decided to give up the ghost, or is he still using sockpuppets to wail into the void?"

          Turns out, you didn't leave while I was out. Oh well.

          1. The self-righteousness causes me to label them as Libertarian Fundamentalists. Precisely like Christian and Islamic Fundamentalists, as the worst threat to their own movements.

            My link proves you full of shit, too.

    1. Not THAT Reason, back before Reason helped lead the total collapse of the movement

      So did you, given that you actually worked for the Libertarian Party.

      1. Irrational Delusionist invents new realities, when he gets crushed elsewhere on the page.

  9. Of course Rand could have justified it. She obviously thought she had a property right in her likeness. Reason would have no right to exploit the property of another without consent.

    To assert and defend a property right is perfectly legitimate and is a central proposition of Objectivism. And Klausner stupidly thinks he'll swan in, take her deposition, and somehow hoist her with her own petard. You see, Miss Rand, I've got you! Mu-ha-ha.

    What a fool.

    1. She justified a lot of things based on emotions. Like the way she treated her pseudo-spouse, the way she treated her one-time intellectual heir, and her support of rough trade as the only "legitimate" form of sex.

      1. I take interest in her general themes and her direct experience with communism.

        She was a semi-rich elitist in czar Russia and then tried to fit in here in America. She always acted elitist.

        I dont fault her too much but I never could completely relate with her work.

        Im American through and thru and her viewpoint is not American centric even after she became an American.

      2. Wow, you've really blown the lid off people having emotions and failed relationships.

        Who cares how she behaved in her private life, or in her relationships? You might as well suggest psychiatrists never get depressed, or marriage counsellors never wind up in divorce court, or cops never get pulled over for speeding.

        Do you care that Stalin and Hitler adored their girlfriends, were kind to animals, and always asked to be excused before they left the table? It's their ideas that matter. Rand wasn't writing New Age self-help manuals. Apparently you think she was.

        1. The alt-right is PROUD of their ignorance.
          And faux libertarians have no clue that her political philosophy was almost totally Jeffersonian.

          Most of them repeat memorized soundbites about books they obviously know nothing about.
          No better than progressives who lie about her on selfishness (versus altruism)

    2. Of course Rand could have justified it. She obviously thought she had a property right in her likeness.

      Copyright was a much larger issue for her.

  10. Oh look, Hihn's here trying to up his numbers.

    Cmon buddy, you can get to 92%. I believe in you!

    1. Lol, humiliating ignorant goobers -- as proven by your FAILURE to challenge ANYTHING. (snort)

        1. So you lol'd Rand for no reason at all .... as I correctly assumed. Thanks for confirming.

          1. I lol'd Rand because she was an illogical pseudo-philosopher. I assumed this was common knowledge.

            1. You assumed that .... in a libertarian publication?
              So you're an illogical pseudo-human.
              Where was Obama born?

  11. I wish the podcast had mentioned Manny's involvement in Bush v. Gore. Does anybody know about this? Was he on Bush's side? For ideological reasons, or just as a lawyer for hire?

    (IMHO, Bush did win. He just plain got more votes in Florida, and Gore wanted to keep recounting until the Dems found more "votes" for him, and then stop counting. But in retrospect, I wish Gore had won. A carbon tax isn't nearly as bad as the endless Iraq war, the rise of Isis, the refugee crisis, and trillion dollar deficits year after year.)

    1. Even the New York Times reported that Bush had won -- as part of a news consortium which conducted its own recount.

      New York Times 1/11/2001

      A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.

      Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.

  12. Transcript please

    1. Note that Nick never says WHY the suit ... which never happened .... because tribalism is his thing. And he did excite the goobers here.

  13. Can you imagine a lawsuit called Rand v. Reason, pitting the author of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged against the nation's only magazine of "Free Minds and Free Markets"?

    Certainly, I can imagine that! Reason was probably as faux-libertarian back then as it is now.

    1. Libertarians have been fiscally conservative and socially liberal for "only" 50 years now.
      This has ALWAYS enraged authoritarians. Because...

      Left - Right = Zero
      And are now less than 40% of the electorate, combined.
      Your time has expired, Cro Magnon
      But we support your right to keep bellowing until you're totally extinct. Liberty!

      1. Reason isn't fiscally conservative or socially liberal. Reason is just a slightly watered down version of the statist, imperialist, elitist b.s. we get from the journalistic profession and impoverished old hippies like you, people who think they are libertarians because they like free weed, promiscuous sex, and hate the police.

          But we support your right to be a bellowing blowhard, Slick.

          1. But we support...

            I'm sure all your split personalities (Elias/David/...) indeed do.

            1. Called out as a fucking liar, Irrational Delusionists switches to cowardly evasion.

              Nolan nailed his ass: Left - Right does equal Zero/

        2. like you, people who think they are libertarians because they like free weed, promiscuous sex, and hate the police.

          None of that applies to me, Irrational Delusionist.

          1. I said "liked", not "are getting". Incel doesn't count.

            1. Called out as a liar... MORE evasion ... and ANOTHER lie!!

              they like

              I said "liked",

              Not TOO retarded. (smirk)

              1. You're hoping that perhaps one of your multiple pesonalities gets sex? Probably not.

                1. Proven a liar .... authoritarian stalker CHANGES THE SUBJECT!

                  Yest another shameless alt-right bully, confirmed as a bellowing blowhard..

                  Will he lie about his own words AGAIN? (vomit)

                  Pity them.

                  1. P.S. libertarians oppose aggression, especially serial aggression, as a core principle..
                    Umm, verbal aggression is the same mentality as physical aggression, the compulsion to control others, by bullying.

                    As we've been noting for nearly 50 years: Left - Right = Zero

                    Boldface in response to multiple aggressions here. Not just against me. It is indeed a compulsion to these people.

  14. Thanks admin for giving such valuable information through your article . Your article is much more similar to word unscramble tool because it also provides a lot of knowledge of vocabulary new words with its meanings.

  15. Major proof of the incompetence of a Trump regime. He created a problem that wasn't there and implemented a fix that should not have been needed and now plans on spending Billions of tax dollars to bail out his ignorant base voters in the states who are losing under his ignorant stupid tariffs...The man is a total moron and so is his followers of ignorance.
    Annexin V Apoptosis Assay

Please to post comments