Jane Coaston: Meet the Libertarian New York Times Podcaster
"At some point, a regulation or a law with the absolute best of intentions will be wielded by people who may not have the absolute best of intentions."

Jane Coaston is the new host of The Argument, a massively popular New York Times podcast that seeks to host civil and informed discussions about the most pressing issues of the day. A 33-year-old Cincinnati native, Coaston has worked at Vox, MTV, and the Human Rights Campaign, among other places. She's the daughter of a black father and a white mother, was raised as a devout Catholic, and identifies as queer.*
She's also a registered Libertarian who is "especially distrustful of efforts by the state to get people to do things." She explains that "at some point, a regulation or a law with the absolute best of intentions will be wielded by people who may not have the absolute best of intentions."
Coaston tells Nick Gillespie that growing up in a liberal household in a conservative part of the country made her concerned about giving authorities a lot of power. Adding to that was a sense of being isolated because of her race and sexuality. "My libertarian sensibilities really came from a sense of, I know what it is like politically to always lose and to see what the winners look like," she says.
One of Coaston's goals for The Argument is to bring in a lot of new voices to debates about politics, partly to learn new arguments but also to model true pluralism. She says she is sick of performative politics in which people act out predetermined roles rather than actually engage with one another and she's wary of the idea that everything needs to be adjudicated at the national level. She also says that we the people—not the feds, or Donald Trump, or Joe Biden—are the ones politicizing every aspect of our lives. That's an individual decision, she insists, and people can make that decision or not.
* CORRECTION: This article originally misdescribed Coaston's spouse.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"Libertarian New York Times Podcaster"
How does that work? Isn't that like being the Vatican's official devil worshipper?
Look up "devil's advocate". Just saying.
Well, I've heard things about the Vatican...
It's pretty typical for liberal major newspapers to have one or two conservative or libertarian opinion columnists. Usually of course they are only allowed to dissent up to a point (the 3 by 5 index card of allowable opinion, as Tom Woods calls it).
"Libertarian New York Times Podcaster"
No such thing.
There's only one purist-libertarian podcast, and that is Styxhexenhammer666. Search for him on Bitchute or Odysee/LBRY.
It sounds like she could be something different for the NYT. But of course, she first had to check off all the identitarian qualifications.
Genuine question: what is "queer" and how is it distinguished from other labels like "lesbian", etc.
I think it has something do do with hairstyles.
It is confusing. And different Woke corners use the term in completely different ways, depending on the year and month. So ironically, "queer" is "fluid".
But it basically means the person doesn't want a normal label. A transwomen would not be a lesbian even though she has a vagina, but doesn't consider himself straight. Thus "queer". Or even a normal lesbian who thinks "lesbian" is too straight of a word, will call herself "queer". And then you will have those who will fuck with anything, but thinks "pansexual" is far too limiting.
In essence it's a label that means "don't label me". Which is why I don't use the word, and take fifty points straight off the top of anyone who demands I use that label in reference to them.
Weirdo? No?
My best understanding is that queer is an explicit term for bending or breaking categorical boundaries. Certain groups use "queer" as a verb in that way. So "queering of gender boundaries" is a goal and I believe identifying as queer goes into that.
I read an interesting book lately call Cynical Theories that I'd recommend that helps give a high level view of the conceptual background of Critical Theory and a lot of this stuff that comes from it, including modern Wokeness and such. Was a good read.
"She also says that we the people—not the feds, or Donald Trump, or Joe Biden—are the ones politicizing every aspect of our lives. That's an individual decision, she insists, and people can make that decision or not."
Great, now do the media.
That fails to account for the fact that as the government, both federal and local, grow in size and control and affects more aspects of people's lives, the natural responece is to become more political, as the punishment for not being political is to be railroaded.
Its the basis for the saying "I'm not interested in politics, but that doesn't mean politics aren't interested in me"
Over/under on how many days before NYT millennials are offended and get her fired?
A week ago last Thursday?
NYT millennials will demand that NYT fund the development of a time machine so they can go back in time and make sure she was never hired in the first place.
Whelp have fun springing that on your relatives, friends, coworkers, politicians. They don't seem to care.
> "At some point, a regulation or a law with the absolute best of intentions will be wielded by people who may not have the absolute best of intentions."
Not with that attitude it won't!
"At some point, a regulation or a law with the absolute best of intentions will be wielded by people who may not have the absolute best of intentions."
Good to see that thought expressed. I'll have to listen to this interview later. I hope she also goes into the even more fundamental issues of intentions != results anyway, as well as just general decision problems. Because, beyond the moral concerns I have with forcing people to act, I do think there is a serious practical issue that even folks with the good intentions cannot pull of what they want in a complicated system such as the world.
Purchase vyvanse online
vyvanse for sale
order vyvanse online
vyvanse capsule
Buy vyvanse capsule
vyvanse chewabale
buy vyvanse chewabale
vyvanse 10mg chewable
vyvanse 10mg
vyvanse 20mg
vyvanse 30mg
vyvanse 40mg
vyvanse 50mg
vyvanse 60mg
vyvanse 70mg
Deutscher Reisepass online kaufen
Führerschein online kaufen
Kaufen Sie europäische Pässe
Kaufen Sie Passport online
Passport online kaufen
österreichischen Führerschein
SUBEB
Coaston says "at some point, a regulation or a law with the absolute best of intentions will be wielded by people who may not have the absolute best of intentions."
She is naive. No regulation or law has any intentions. The intent of those who enacted it is irrelevant when it comes to how it will be enforced. What is relevant is the power that the law or regulation confers on those who exercise or enforce it. All laws that confer power are coercive and they will, therefore, be abused. That's not an accident, it is the nature of law.
It's rather normal for leading political publications to have one or two left or right wing opinion columnists. Of course, they are usually only entitled to disagree up to a point (the 3 by 5 index card of allowable opinion, as Tom Woods calls it).
author: essay writing services