Libertarian Party

Dave Smith: Libertarians vs. Big Tech, Big Government, and…Other Libertarians

The popular podcaster and comedian on the future of the Libertarian Party, his vaccine hesitancy, and fighting the culture war

|

The comedian and podcaster Dave Smith, a rising presence in Libertarian Party (L.P.) circles, says he's considering running for the party's presidential nomination in 2024.

Smith says a major reason he expects to run is that even though the 2020 nominee, Jo Jorgensen, got the second-highest vote total in L.P. history, he thinks she didn't push back hard enough on government lockdowns and overreach in its fight against COVID, which he sees as a missed opportunity to build a bigger libertarian movement.

A vocal opponent of wokeness and political correctness, Smith is quick to attack fellow libertarians whom he thinks are naive about how the state maintains its power. He's said that he'd "take a red-pilled leftie over a blue-pilled libertarian any day."

After the Biden administration revealed it was pushing Facebook to restrict accounts it says are spreading misinformation about COVID-19, Smith tweeted, "This administration has exposed the useful idiots who call themselves libertarians. Saying 'it's a private company' for the last few years, ignoring what is obviously the biggest threat to liberty. They unwittingly support the largest government in human history."

After that take was discussed on a recent Reason Roundtable podcast, Smith tweeted that my fellow panelists and I had misrepresented his views. So I reached out to him so he could clarify his views on the intersection of big government and Big Tech, and discuss the future of the L.P., why he has no plans to vaccinate himself or his young daughter, and why he believes libertarians should be more engaged in the culture war.

NEXT: Government Shouldn’t Stop People From Doing Self-Destructive Things

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.

  1. Thanks! Now get Michael Malice.

    1. Malice talks openly about tearing down institutional propaganda, so Reason would not benefit from providing him a platform

      1. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone… Work for three to eight a day and startING getting paid in XX the range of 17,000-19,000 dollars a month… Weekly payments Learn More details Good luck…

        See……………VISIT HERE

        1. My last pay test was $9500 operating 12 hours per week on line. my sisters buddy has been averaging 15k for months now and she works approximately 20 hours every week. i can not accept as true with how easy it become as soon as i tried it out. This is what do,…………… READ MORE

    2. Michael Malice seems like a decent and thoughtful person. Dave Smith, not so much. Every time I heard him talk, he comes across as the type of douche people think of when they think of the word “libertarian.”

      1. Chipper Morning Wood————————————————————————–
        May.26.2021 at 6:29 pm
        Flag Comment Mute User
        Libertarians have more in common with Marxism than with modern conservatism. It’s sad that it’s come to that, but here we are.

      2. Every time you post, I’m reminded or why most people think “asshole” when they read the lefty shit you post.

      3. You realize this comment is a ringing endorsement of Dave Smith for 90%+ of the commentariat, right?

      4. Agreed. Malice has a spine and principles.

    3. Then get neoconremover and El Pulpo.

  2. According to the true libertarians on this board, there is one and only one test to determine if someone is also a true libertarian. We all know what it is.

    1. Opposing totalitarians and supporting anyone that does the same?

      1. Nope, that’s not it

        1. Ah cause you failed that test, right fatty?

        2. I think we all knew you’d say that.

      2. Yeah, you got it! True libertarians support authoritarian Republicans because totalitarians are worse! Three cheers for authoritarianism! Hip hip hooray! Hip hip hooray! Hip hip hooray!

        1. “You didn’t vote for Trump so I’m hope you’re happy with Biden!” –True Libertarian

          1. But in fact they did vote for Biden, as the LP vote totals show.

          2. Most of the Reason staff proudly voted for Biden in 2020. Truly a libertarian lot they are.

              1. So only about half voted for Biden or admitted that they would have voted for Biden if they thought Trump had a chance to win their state. “I’ll vote Libertarian but only if the Democrat wins” isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement of their libertarian credentials.

                1. You should see the whistle blower thread where he deflects from Bidens current birder crisis to Trump.

              2. “Never let facts get in the way of the narrative.
                https://reason.com/2020/10/12/how-will-reason-staffers-vote-in-2020/

                That mirror is tough watching, isn’t it TDS-addled lefty asshole?

            1. Most voted Jorgensen or not at all.

              1. And jorgenson was an anti racist supporting left libertarian not worth 2 shits. She would have gotten less done than Amash.

                But your main concern was getting the guy out who did tax breaks, reduced regulations, no new wars, etc even if it meant higher taxes, more regulation, new wars, crt, expanded federal government etc.

                You have no principles. You accepted attacks on liberty.

          3. You solely complained about trump for 2 years helping push DNC backed narratives in order to garner votes for their side. You were just as active in campaigning for Biden as was MSNBC.

            Even now in near August of 2021 you comain more about the GOP than the fuckers in congress and the white house.

            Youre as dishonest as sarcasmic.

          4. Lol, going by your posts, Brandybuck, there’s no way you didn’t vote a straight (D) ticket.

        2. Are true libritarians alcoholics that do a shitty job of raising their daughter?

          1. “You’re not a t-t-true lib-b-bertarian until you d-d-downed a f-f-forty and threatened your ex!”

        3. God damn you are fucking dense and hopeless. Pointing out the DNC is worse both in planning and in actions than the current GOP doesn’t mean you support authoritarian actions from the GOP you drunk retarded fuck.

          The fact that you think so and only attack the right to mask the differences essentially says you’d prefer ten steps towards authority than a single step towards freedoms.

          Neither party is perfect. One open campaigns and executes steps towards greater authoritarianism. Youre such a fucking drunk you think they are equal. And this helps push the DNC forward.

          1. The difference between (R) and (D) is like the difference between the Boss Hogg and Cthulhu. Voting (L) is like voting for Enos Strate.

            1. It really isn’t close. But these idiots hide their liberal leanings behind “i hate both equally even though i only talk about democrats” then claim they don’t vote. Sarcasmic and brandy will never go find a post that was solely anti biden or dnc. Can find dozens the other way. They’ve made their choices they just lie about it.

              They deny reality under the false cry of equally bad.

          2. I agree with you that the Dems are a much more massive threat than the GOP at this point and thus we must vote for the lesser of two evils by voting for the GOP right now (as much as I hate/fear the social conservatives and Religious Right).
            But I also understand the purist libertarian position that we should not vote for the lesser of two evils because then all we’ll ever get is evil.
            Neither approach is right or wrong; they are two different strategies in iterative game theory. “Vote for the lesser of two evils” is a short-term strategy; “vote only for good or don’t vote at all” (or “never vote for evil”) is a long-term strategy.
            Which is “better?” Well, it depends on your preference for long or short term.
            (And of course there is the purist anarchist position of “we should never vote at all, because it lends legitimacy to an evil statist system,” but I left that out to keep this comparison simple.)

            1. “…(as much as I hate/fear the social conservatives and Religious Right)…”

              Yep, those folks who teach their kids that dinos and humans walked the earth at the same time are as threatening as, oh, the commie assholes who murdered 100million innocent people!
              Trying for the gold in ‘virtue signalling’? Pretty sure Brandyshit/turd’s got you beat.

            2. The Dems own the media, big tech, govt workers, teachers, hollywood, news……
              all this by infiltrating their ranks over decades… heck, they even own some republican seats AS Republicans by infiltration!
              in the current configuration the only way to get more libertarian is for true libertarian ideas to infiltrate the republican party. I would have said both parties, but the Dems are obviously not receptive in the least to those ideals… plus.. why should they be. they own everything as it is – they dont need libertarians.

              1. This is the way I think a lot of us here see it (the Dems being wholly unreceptive to liberty/freedom). I think a lot of the people we give grief came to libertarianism from the left so they have a blind spot to this.

                Even if it should be patently obvious just from the way they talk about and propose decriminalizing pot.

    2. Living at home in your parents basement?

      No, wait, listening to the Ramones while ordering coffee by drone.

      Or is it claiming everyone else ISN’T a REAL libertarian?

      It’s #3, isn’t it.

      1. Psssst! True libertarians are Trump Republicans who don’t wear masks and don’t accept the election results!

        hth!

        1. Was that supposed to be sarcastic? Because it is pretty libritarian to disagree with a made up government edict that does nothing and is solely implimentd for the purpose forcing obedience. Also very libritarian to question the results of an election that has private companies admitting to skew the elections with working with polititions, and colliding across industries to science legitimate stories that show Biden is a scumbag (both professionally and personally) , state legislatures admitting to illegally changing election laws, and the dnc getting the green party kicked off of ballots by lying and using falsified evidence of fraud.

          1. sarcasmic isn’t very bright. Back in college, he was told libertarianism is the Playboy philosophy and legal weed, so that’s about it for him.

            1. He didn’t go to college. He was a cook for the drugs. He only recently started reading anything remotely libertarian and sticks to a freshman understanding of those arguments. I mean he didnt know what a Cuban sandwich was and you think he has any kind of education beyond drugs and alcohol?

          2. It’s what sarc/jeff (or their mothers) find ‘clever’; pretty fucking stupid an they prove it here every day.

      2. It’s definitely #3.

        You have no idea what a burden it is being the only true libertarian on Earth. Simone Biles never had it so rough.

    3. Remember when sarc said he only posts about the issues and not other commentators? That was funny.

      1. I remember when he also said he attacks whatever party is in power. Yet 8 months later still only discusses trump and the gop.

  3. Hour and a half? Why not. Background noise while I work. Wonder if anyone else will listen….. HAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    1. Work.
      HaHaHa

      1. It’s code for drinking and rage commentating.

      2. That bottle won’t lift itself…

  4. he thinks she didn’t push back hard enough on government lockdowns and overreach in its fight against COVID, which he sees as a missed opportunity to build a bigger libertarian movement.

    A vocal opponent of wokeness and political correctness, Smith is quick to attack fellow libertarians whom he thinks are naive about how the state maintains its power. He’s said that he’d “take a red-pilled leftie over a blue-pilled libertarian any day.”

    Amen, brother. Jo Jorgensen shot herself in the foot by trying to cozy up to BLM. Any politician that supports or even has the perception of supporting BLM is dead to me. Dead.

    1. I think he’s correct on that first statement it was a big opportunity missed. To Sarcasmic yes I listened I thought it was a good interview and I also now believe Gillespie should be an AM talk radio host.

      1. I’m about 20 minutes into it. Pretty good so far. But there’s no way he could possibly be a true libertarian because he said bad things about Republicans.

        1. But there’s no way he could possibly be a true libertarian because he said bad things about Republicans.

          Again, I don’t think anyone here has ever said Republicans are beyond reproach. The criticism is that Reason somehow finds a way to equivocate tax breaks with subsidies and acts like the conflation makes the subsidies worse than a proposal about a reality czar or blames divisive republicans for divisions that the NYT asserts started in 1619. Dave will absolutely demonize Hillary Clinton and John McCain in the same breath, especially with regard to hawkishness/neo-conservatism. AFAICT, you’d be hard pressed to find a “right-leaning” “true” libertarian who would disagree with the notion.

          I know it’s hard to put your left/right politics aside, but when a libertarian like Dave Smith says “I oppose vaccine passports.” and a libertarian like Ron Bailey says, well before anyone even proposed a vaccine passport, “What we really need is more testing and some sort of public recording/reporting scheme.” it’s pretty clear who gives a shit about people’s freedoms regardless of party and who doesn’t.

          1. Again, I don’t think anyone here has ever said Republicans are beyond reproach.

            Maybe not in so many words. But the slightest slight against any Republican is blown out of proportion, as is any nod towards a Democrat, regardless of merit. At least that’s what I see.

            As far as my politics go, you have no idea of what they are. I’m sure plenty of people here will be happy to tell you. You know, the ones I muted because I got sick of defending myself from things I never said nor did. If you want to know my politics and have an honest conversation, then ask. But you won’t.

            1. As far as my politics go, you have no idea of what they are.

              You’re right, I don’t. All I see is a comment chastising libertarians who take offense at people who criticize Republicans.

              If you want to know my politics and have an honest conversation, then ask. But you won’t.

              I don’t have to. Below, you yourself say “Reality isn’t real. It’s a personal construction. That’s why so many people believe some really stupid shit, and honestly believe that they’re the ones who took the red pill.”

              Did you take some mystical pill that makes you able to convey impartial reality to people who can’t perceive it or are you just dishonest.

              I’m not either one. Whether reality is real or not, your statement is inconsistent with the rest of what is known. Plenty of people around here have judged and will continue to judge your bullshit for what it is. So keep on going around saying “Reality isn’t real. I speak only impartial truths. Only right-leaning libertarians are guilty of excommunicating other libertarians on the True Scotsman fallacy (like nobody overtly chased *alleged* racists out of the party).” and then wonder why people don’t give a shit about your political opinion.

              1. Whether reality is real or not, your statement is inconsistent with the rest of what is known within your own ideology/constructs, that is.

              2. Did you take some mystical pill that makes you able to convey impartial reality to people who can’t perceive it or are you just dishonest.

                Is that a false dichotomy or a loaded question? So many fallacies used on these comments. Gets confusing.

                In answer to your asshole-comment, I see different people believing in realities that conflict with each other to the point where they can’t all be true. And honestly some are really stupid. You’re honestly going to tell me you don’t consider some peoples’ beliefs to be stupid? Well tell you what, they probably think your beliefs are stupid. It’s all relative.

                1. And I’m sure they all believe that they are the ones who took the red pill.

                2. You’re honestly going to tell me you don’t consider some peoples’ beliefs to be stupid?

                  I didn’t say that nor make such an assertion. Quite the opposite. You tell me reality is an illusion and then claim to know tell the truth (in a distinctly partisan manner). I don’t need to know the truth nor does anyone else. They can evaluate your construct and decide for themselves. No red pills/blue pills necessary. You’re not even as sophisticated as an early version of the Matrix that people largely rejected.

                  1. You tell me reality is an illusion and then claim to know tell the truth (in a distinctly partisan manner).

                    No, that’s not at all true. I make fun of Republicans who claim that libertarians must vote Republican.

                    1. Again you lie about others arguments because you refuse to admit both sides aren’t equal threats to your liberty. Find one policy of the right a greater threat than GBD or CRT.

                      Youre just delusional. I actually think you’ve realized you are wrong but are so stubborn you refuse to say so. The reason you mute people is because they are telling you truths about you or your arguments you can’t refute. So you run and hide like a child.

                    2. I don’t think you must vote any way, but it’s been obvious since the Bush Administration that Democrats are the greater threat to liberty, seeing as how they signed off on all of the horrible Republican (Patriot Act chief among them), then turned around and said “Hold my beer”.

                  2. And I never claimed to know the truth. No. I mock those who do.

                    1. No you don’t. You’re a partisan asshole who thinks his shit doesn’t smell like an ill educated alcoholic.

                    2. No. I mock those who do.

                      Is “mock” sarc-speak for “suckhole”?
                      Because nobody else here claims to be the voice of god quite like Jeff on and White Mike, and you’re always tonguing their asses.

                    3. Say those 3 can’t afford a half million dollar air bnb for even one night.

            2. And yet here you are, pre-emptively jumping in and condemning such people. You didn’t even wait for it. It reminds me of that crazy ex-girlfriend who cannot stop complaining about the boyfriend 2 years later.

              Seriously, if your first thought on the comment board is to make the comment about the trumpaloos, then you are the one who is obsessed, man.

              1. Just trying to head them off at the pass with a bit of mockery.

                1. It worked, too. Just like this rock keeps tigers away.

                  1. Fucker just keeps doubling down on his posts and his sock puppets.

                    Screeeetch.

                2. Sarc. Dude. You have been “heading them off” for, what, a year now? You muted them in the comments, now just mute them in your head and you will be free.

                  1. I’ll never be free. JesseAz will be humping my leg as long as the soda cans are red, white and blue.

                    1. And buckleup, Don’t look at me, R Mac, etc. I could say the sky is blue and they’ll say something about my daughter. Fuck these people.

                    2. Lol. I will continue to call your bullshit put because you act like a fucking victim when you’re the problem. You’re a cowardly version of antifa.

                    3. I also like how you pretend you never insult people.

                    4. Fuck you fuckers and your sea of grey. While I haven’t read any of the comments, I would let someone wax my armpit hair if one, just one, of those comments wasn’t a snide personal attack. Which is why you’re on mute. Fuck you.

                    5. Such trolling. Youre a hypocrite.

                    6. Fuck you fuckers and your sea of grey. While I haven’t read any of the comments

                      Meanwhile yesterday sarcasmic was shitting himself with rage that Ken had muted him for trolling.

                      I guess when you’re drunkposting, self-awareness isn’t a priority.

                  2. It’s been much longer than a year since we broke sarc. The sad thing is he thinks he’s “heading us off” when in reality he’s just entertaining us.

                    1. Lol so true.

                      We also aren’t cowards who hide behind a mute because someone would make us look in a mirror.

                      I freely admit I’m an ass to jeff, white Mike, chipper, and sarcasmic.

                      Mostly because they do the very shot sarcasmic cried about in the first post.

                    2. It’s a point of pride to me to tell DNC fifty-centers and shitposting trolls like Jeff, White Mike, DOL and sarcasmic to go fuck themselves.
                      Everyone should do it. It’s the right thing to do.

                3. Rationalizing your trolling is just admitting youre trolling.

            3. Youre so full of shit.

          2. I generally run somewhere between 30% serious and 75% serious. I’ve very rarely 100% serious. Not just here, but with life in general. Lots of people hate that. Especially the ones who run on 100% serious all the time. Maybe my sense of humor (launches the troll flag to tell me I’ve never been funny blah blah fuck you Mother’s Lament you’re on mute) is a coping mechanism. Whatever. If you read too much into my posts, take them totally seriously, then that’s your problem. And if you get mad at me as a person because you take something I said to be totally serious, well that’s all on you. Fuck, look at my name for fuck’s sake.

            1. Problem is youre not in any way funny.

              You also claim to be joking after saying something really fucking stupid and being called out on it. Especially when it us obvious it wasn’t a joke.

              1. Pointing out his jokes aren’t funny was one of the main things that broke him. That really pisses him off.

                1. He is one of the least funny people on the planet. But drunks always find themselves hilarious.

              2. ‘…Problem is youre not in any way funny. ..”

                Nor clever.
                Nor honest.
                Nor insightful.
                Nor intelligent.
                sarc is a lefty ignoramus, hoping that he can fool some of the people here into thinking he’s other than that. And failing.
                Remember a month or so ago when the steaming pile of lefty shit was telling us how all the cool-kid glibs were welcoming him with open arms? Looks like it didn’t work out that way.
                sarc? Stuff your head up your ass and breathe deeply.

                1. Lying about leaving here to go to glibs was definitely weird. Why not just post in both places and see how it goes? But he had to make a big proclamation about leaving, now he looks broken. Again.

            2. “fuck you Mother’s Lament you’re on mute”

              I love the fact that this abusive troll is mad at me.

        2. Lol. You actively go against virtually every point he brings up you dumb fuck. Your only 2 reasons of being here are to attack conservatives and be a victim. You do nothing to denounce the open attempts at authoritarianism of the left. In fact in threads regarding bad acts by Biden your only contributions is attacks against conservatives. See this very fucking thread.

      2. No, he should be an FM dj at at the local Indie, community-supported radio station, doing a Gen-X nostalgia show.

      3. You time travel? The difference between your comment and the original post is greater than the length of the podcast.

        1. less than, derp

    2. I’ve liked Dave since his bit on Joe Rogan about Gary Johnson was a ‘wet noodle abolitionist’. I’d vote for Dave Smith.

    3. She was a “none of the above” mark on the ballot and little more. Conservatives who couldn’t stomach another 4 years of Trump corruption but would rather shoot themselves in the foot than vote for a Democrat, especially one seen palling around with a black guy.

      1. Conservatives who couldn’t stomach another 4 years of Trump corruption but would rather shoot themselves in the foot than vote for a Democrat, especially one seen palling around with a black guy.

        Obama’s share of the vote means that at least some of the people who refused to vote for a Democrat who pals around with a black guy voted for a black guy.

        Now, go on and lecture us about how Donald “Very fine people on both sides” Trump is the divisive one.

        1. Yeah, math says “no.” Or at least, you cannot know that for sure given the 28 million plus additional voters.

          Year, Republican, Democrat, Total votes
          2012: 60,933,504 + 65,915,795 = 126,849,299
          2016: 62,984,828 + 65,853,514 = 128,838,342
          2020: 74,216,154 + 81,268,924 = 155,485,078
          28,635,779 more people voted in 2020 than 2012

          We know that a few high-profile “never Trump” Republicans claimed to vote for Biden as a way to make a political point regarding their poor opinion of Trump. Beyond that, the numbers don’t support the claim that Obama voters elected Trump in large enough numbers to matter. Republicans have lost every popular vote even while their numbers grew each year. And the Democrats have won every popular vote.

          If you think saying there are “very fine” white nationalists isn’t divisive, then why waste my time?

      2. This looks like another Jeff sockpuppet.

      3. “another 4 years of Trump corruption”

        Such as?

        1. LOL. Seriously? Emoluments, Hatch Act, misappropriation of funds, nepotism… you don’t even have to bring up the things he was impeached over to build up a list. The guy is a singular talent when it comes to lining his pockets. Then count all of the prosecutions and jail time for his inner circle; he surrounded himself with corrupt people. And the evidence for widespread tax fraud is building by the day.

          This all may come as a surprise to folks who only consume FOX news or OANN. (Does anyone watch Newsmax any more?)

          1. You said seriously then listed a bunch of unserious shit. Why?

          2. Lots of words. No specific example of corruption. Never watched OANN or Newsmax. Are they on Hulu? The only things I watch on Fox are Gutfeld and Kennedy (libertarians, you should watch them).

            “The guy is a singular talent when it comes to lining his pockets.”

            Someone doesn’t know how rich many of the people in congress have gotten as “public servants”. They literally allowed themselves to engage in insider trading.

            Serious question: Are you a teenager?

      4. “…another 4 years of Trump corruption…”

        See those cites? Me neither.
        Stuff your TDS up your ass, lefty shit. Your head is dying for company

        1. Did you miss where he said “Hatch Act”? What more proof do you need? And by proof, I mean that he’s been given the correct talking points to earn his fifty cents.

      5. I bet her pull of conservatives was less than 1% of her vote share.

    4. Listen to quite a few of the red pulled leftists that turned over post 2018. Tim pool being one of the leading ones. They open see what the democrats are gunning for with policies like CRT, spending, culture war, etc. Far more libertarian than the likes of sarcasmic or brandy who are still mired in their TDS derangement and claims of both sides equally bad.

  5. he’d “take a red-pilled leftie over a blue-pilled libertarian any day.”

    What precisely does “red pill” and “blue pill” mean in this context? I understand they are originally references to the Matrix, but what would a “red-pilled leftie” be expected to believe, as compared to a “blue-pilled libertarian”?

    1. Well, my youtube feed is chockablock with red-pilled lefties. Not all of them would describe themselves that way, and like “alt-right” it probably takes on many contexts.

      That context could probably stretch anywhere between the cultural, “liberal lefty” (I’ll use Brendan O’Neill, Reason contributor for this example) who rightly feels that the left has abandoned its principles of liberty, tolerance and in particular, the love of freedom of speech, all the way to the former lefty who now wears a MAGA hat and has become a rabid Trump supporter.

      My youtube feed has a lot of liberal left Feminists, thinkers, writers etc., who aren’t really Trump supporters per-se, but recognize something very dark happening on the mainstream left, and also recognize that TDS was real and often spun off into areas that were laughable.

      I prefer to listen to “red pilled” leftys because some of their beliefs still don’t mesh with my own (some on the feminist left, for instance) but because of the position they find themselves in (often attacked rabidly by their own side) they’re now more willing to listen to other perspectives, and you can have an adult conversation with them, even disagreeing on many points, without being called a racist of a phobe.

      1. Glenn Greenwald is someone who is accused of being “red pilled” by the bog standard eugenics left.

        Greenwald would no doubt not describe himself as being red pilled, we would rightly describe himself as remaining consistent.

        1. He’s been red pilled as regards the left now, though.

        2. I don’t know what this red pill blue pill thing means.

          I thought they were reddit forums devoted to misogyny/misandry where kids bicker about gender relations things in blunt terms. How does this relate to political left/right?

          Seems pretty inside baseball to me. Like a term only people who obsess over something or other on the twitters will understand in this context.

          1. Red-pill/blue-pill doesn’t necessarily correlate with partisan politics. I think the absolute easiest and most accurate simplification is that red-pill distrusts institutions and believes the narrative is a lie. The blue-pill still trusts institutions and media narratives or accepts with minimal skepticism.

            Left and Right both contain red-pills. Gen Z is largely red-pilled, characterized by their questioning of everything and disagreeing with both parties on key issues.

            1. This is the more straightforward way to describe it.

            2. How does “wokeness” fit into “red-pill?”

            3. So what is the difference, then, between being “red pilled” and full-on conspiracy theorist? Seems as if the two concepts are at least adjacent.

              1. I’d say there’s degrees of distrust, starting with skepticism, ending with Nardz, with degrees of reasonableness in between.

                1. You sure do call out other posters a lot when not in thread. I mean you cried about that above.

                  1. I make fun of Nardz because I like him. We don’t agree, but he’s not an asshole. He’ll never be muted.

                    Yes, I looked without logging in because I wanted to confirm that every muted post was some “you, you, you” and it was.

                    Get a fucking life.

                    And Nardz. Has cutting back on Twitter helped your blood pressure?

                    1. All you’ve done in this thread is call put other people you retarded fuck. You’ve made no substantive arguments regarding anything. I’ve actually posited the differences between the two parties.

                      Once again you can’t refute so you lie and hide like a child.

                      You called out multiple people who weren’t even on thread yet. Your first post was a “you” comment dummy.

                      How much of a hypocrite are you going to be today?

                    2. Nardi is psychotic. He needs help not coddling.

                    3. “Nardi is psychotic. He needs help not coddling.”

                      jeff is a steaming pile of lefty shit. He needs to fuck off and die.

                    4. “Nardi is psychotic. He needs help not coddling”

                      If there’s anyone I want to judge who’s psychotic, it’s definitely a pathological liar.

              2. You are saying that Glenn Greenwald is a full-on conspiracy theorist?

                1. I frankly don’t know very much about Glenn Greenwald. Is he?

                  1. Just admit to ignorance already. This is just further proof you only parody institutional media.

                    1. Parrot not parody. Stupid autocorrect.

                    2. Jeff knows plenty about Greenwald and Taibbi, and thinks they’re blasphemers and traitors. He’s just not comfortable publicly attacking them because he doesn’t have a narrative to work with yet.

                  2. Dude, he’s linked to all the time here. By multiple different commentators.

              3. True red pills are looking for the truth. To an outsider, they can appear more conspiratorial as they are willing to entertain dozens of possibilities without tying themselves down to any one thing. Conspiracy theorists buy in fully to alternative narratives that sometimes deserve just as much skepticism as the mainstream.

                The woke are fully sympatico with the dominant narrative supported by governing structures, culture (entertainment and business), and news media. I’d say they are full on blue pilled.

                Bernie bros are red pilled Dems. They totally distrust the entire structure.

                1. I am reminded of the phrase, “If you believe in nothing, you’ll fall for anything.”

                  So if these individuals have such total disdain and mistrust in existing institutions and narratives, then it seems more likely that they will fall for conspiratorial garbage.

                  I can’t say I really know any “red pilled” people in real life so I don’t know.

                  1. I am reminded of the phrase, “If you believe in nothing, you’ll fall for anything.”

                    Which is why I try to operate with skepticism in all things. A skeptic can be swayed. Takes a bit more work, but it can be done. People with total distrust have already made up their minds. At least they’ve made up their minds that what they’ve been told is a pantload. Then, like you said, they leave their minds open to Alex Jones or some other conspiracy nutter because they’ll let anything fill the blank.

                    Skepticism is good. Questioning is good. Full-scale rejection isn’t because it leave a mental vacuum that can easily be filled with manure.

                    1. “Which is why I try to operate with skepticism in all things.”

                      You’re one of the most gullible fucks I’ve ever read. The credulity sweepstakes winner.

                      In the last six months you’ve believed that Jan 06 was an insurrection, The FBI is apolitical, Trump camp wasn’t spied on, Trump called Nazis fine people, The media is tough on Biden, Trump said all Mexicans rapists, 5 people were murdered at the Capitol, Trump pays no taxes, etc.

                  2. Except that’s not how it’s been playing out. They will accept an overarching idea (the opposite of what mainstream pushes) and evaluate details as they come on their own merits.

                    Remember when the MSM was claiming white supremacists were plotting to kidnap Whitmer? Based on knowledge of how the FBI works, red pilled said FBI. Conspiracy theorists! Except they were right.

                    1. But that very much depends on how they conducted their analysis of the Whitmer situation. Anyone can guess lucky, anyone can simply be cynical about everything and wind up being right sometimes, that doesn’t prove excessive cynicism is the correct course of action.

                  3. I’m reminded of the phrase “sarc is a fucking lefty ignoramus” .

                    1. Well, it happened again; who can tell the lefty pile of shit sarc from the lefty pile of shit jeff? Not me

      2. Here’s Michael Malice (another favorite of mine– although I don’t consider Malice ‘red-pilled’) talking about the phenomenon.

        Malice correctly notes that “red-pilling” originally had nothing to do with “red == republican” but was a reference to the Matrix– anyone who no longer believed in the ‘facade’ and chose to go the direction of reality outside of the illusion.

        The term “red-pilling” is often bandied about on social media, frequently by people who have no idea what it means—or take it to mean “red” in the sense of Republican red states. The concept comes from the documentary “The Matrix,” and is defined in my book as “demonstrating to someone that what is presented as fact by the corporate press and entertainment industries is only (at best) a shadow of what is real, that this supposed reality is in fact a carefully constructed narrative intentionally designed to keep some very unpleasant people in power and to keep everyone else tame and submissive.”

        Given the overwhelmingly hard-left agenda within corporate media, red-pilling far more frequently occurs on the right hand of the political spectrum. Yet there are plenty of red-pilled leftists as well, voices like Glenn Greenwald and Michael Tracey, who have no problem slamming outlets like The New York Times for what can charitably be described as malfeasance.

        1. Early last week, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard dropped what was essentially a red pill on the Democratic field, explicitly saying, “The 2016 Democratic primary election was rigged by the DNC and their partners in the corporate media against Bernie Sanders.” Not biased, but rigged. Not “Fox News,” but “corporate media.” Gabbard claimed to be considering boycotting the debate.

          Williamson—who did not meet the debate criteria—agreed with Gabbard’s assessment. “I have great respect for Tulsi for saying such inconvenient truth,” Williamson tweeted. “She is absolutely correct.”

          One of the ways orthodox progressives get their agenda across is using the corporate press to give the impression that all decent, right-thinking people agree with them. For this to be true, one would have to accept that Williamson is indecent, and the average corporate journalist is. One would have to accept the blue pill.

          1. Yup. Inside baseball for the people who obsess over this crap on twitter.

            1. Not really. I don’t even have a twitter account, I mainly listen to long-form podcasts, read a few books and watch youtube.

              1. And lived through the 90s when an entire decade of culture was persistently analyzed through the lens of the Matrix.

                1. And lived through the 90s

                  Late 90s/00s. Must be a glitch in my historical upload.

                2. I was one of the few people in my cohort that didn’t wear a baseball cap backwards. So my Gen-X credentials are suspect.

          2. Tulsi is totally red pilled

            1. Among other things.

              1. That’s out of my wheelhouse but more power to ya ;;;)))

        2. you dont consider malice red pilled? lol you know nothing

        3. And here I was thinking it referred to White Rabbit or the Alice books.

          1. Or to Valium, Viagra, or some such.

      3. How would you describe hickock45 or Demolition Ranch?

        1. I don’t know who Demolition Ranch is, and while I do know Hickock45, I don’t know anything about his politics, except assumptions I can make: He’s a good old boy who loves guns and lives in flyover country.

          But again, “red pilling” is not about “becoming a republican”– it has nothing to do with that. In fact, it’s a large number of republicans that have become red-pilled themselves. Tucker Carlson is probably your best example.

          1. I’m familiar with Demolition Ranch’s show, I don’t know their personal histories too extensively but If you had to stick with the metaphor, I would describe them as “genuine children of Zion”. Born in the real world, never plugged into the Matrix, never necessitating the red pill/blue pill stay/leave decision.

            1. At least, I never got the impression that they largely followed or cared about the news as reported by Glenn Greenwald or Tucker Carleson (or Don Lemon or Bill O’Reilly or Rush Limbaugh or…).

          2. Ah, you’re being serious without being an asshole. Refreshing.

            I know the Matrix reference.

            I think “red pilling” is relative. One man’s red pill would be the equivalent of getting hooked back up to another. Reality isn’t real. It’s a personal construction. That’s why so many people believe some really stupid shit, and honestly believe that they’re the ones who took the red pill.

            1. “Reality isn’t real” and then “people believe some really stupid shit”

              Yup you cracked it screetch. You’re doped up and you believe some really stupid shit.

            2. Believing the left is equally bad to the right is some of the stupidest shit you can believe.

            3. “Ah, you’re being serious without being an asshole. Refreshing…”

              Ah, you’re hoping someone is buying your bullshit. Boring.

          3. ” In fact, it’s a large number of republicans that have become red-pilled themselves.”

            I would consider myself a red-pilled republican. At some point during the run up to 2012, I realized that we were going to have Romney as the candidate no matter what. I saw National Review shilling for him constantly without ever once stopping to consider any of the other candidates (and also saw pretty much every other high potential candidate abstain from the candidacy to let Romney get the nod). I saw them reject out of hand the game changing tax plan suggestions while they pimped Ramesh Ponnuru’s “socialist social engineering with a catholic twist” tax proposals and gave prominent space to Mark Krikorian and his anti-free-market Center For Immigration Studdies- nodding sagely while he made socialist arguments for wage subsidies through immigration restrictionism.

            It was at that point I really looked back at how much water-carrying the National Review and other beltway republicans had done for fiscally insane and inane policies while claiming to be conservative. No Child Left Behind. Medicare Part Fuckoff. Patriot Act. They were handing the left win after win after win- pissing on our legs and claiming it was raining.

            Indeed, it made it that much easier to see why these people were craven slaves to the establishment when they rejected Trump. They never had a problem tolerating Mark Krikorian and his anti-immigration nonsense for YEARS. But when suddenly Trump was in the mix, they lost their shit- despite him parroting exactly the same arguments Krikorian had been making for years.

            I had left the GOP by the time Trump came around, and I hated his rise because it made me that much more convinced that our nation is run by irredeemable populist idiots (and by that I mean the voters) who will gladly hand their liberties over to the first tyrant that will give them the biggest case of the Feelz and OoooRahs. (Hint: If you aren’t equally creeped out by the cults of personality surrounding Obama and Trump, you have not taken the pill yet.) This is all perpetuated by the King Makers in both parties. The only good thing about the GOP is that there is no monopoly on King Making- as much as the rest of the world wants to tilt it into the hands of those establishment aperatchiks that ran it prior to Trump.

            1. “… (Hint: If you aren’t equally creeped out by the cults of personality surrounding Obama and Trump, you have not taken the pill yet.) …”

              Hint: You decided that being a TDS-addled piece of shit was your best option, TDS-addled asshole?
              Fuck off and die, asshole.

    2. Red pill means you questioned that insurrectionists killed a cop with a fire extinguisher, blue pulled means you accepted it without question.

      1. Last 4 years has a ton of examples.

      2. Or, you know, you can watch the video evidence taken by insurrectionists during the melee and listen to the eye-witness testimony. You don’t need to take a pill to do that.

        “Red Pill” means turning a liberty-seeking libertarian into a tiki-torch carrying conservative screaming “you will not replace us.” The constant bleed of libertarian membership is largely to the alt-right/neo-nazi crowd.

        1. We get it. Youre blue pilled

        2. Cite of the video of a cop being killed with a fire extinguisher? I thought everyone gave up on that narrative.

    3. blue pilled losers like you who trust the government and gladly get spoon fed establishment propaganda. Now take your shot, wear your mask, and work when we tell you to

      1. Oh hey! Tattoo that on your chest so your nurse has something to amuse herself as she intubates you in the ICU.

        1. They largely stopped intubation due to the increase in sepsis dumbfuck.

        2. Oh, hey! Admit you’re a steaming pile of lefty shit.

        3. I’ve got none of the co-morbidities, so I expect if I get it a second time (pretty unlikely) I’ll recover as well as I did the first time.

          Oh shit, well done! I just realized you’re a parody.

      2. Not accepting the Team Red narrative that Biden represents the coming of Armageddon is what counts for not being a libertarian now I suppose.

        1. It is snark like this that convinces me you are just trolling. You have no interest in learning what a Red Pill liberal is. You just want to appear reasonable before dropping the hammer.

          1. It was the use of the word “Armageddon” that tipped you off, wasn’t it?

  6. Dave Smith a major tool. And by “tool” mean he’s a dick. He’s pushed more people away from libertarianism than anyone else alive. Maybe it’s a New York thing, but he’s not at all funny, and thinks mocking people who aren’t purist Fever Swampians is the epitome of humor.

    1. I’m sure we’ll see you best him for the LP ticket and then out perform him on stage. Either way, I look forward to your next appearance on Joe Rogan’s show or emceeing a Soho Forum debate.

      1. Oh, please, no more Dave Smith at the Soho Forum. He fucking sucks and is not funny at all.

        1. But you think you and sarcasmic are hilarious. I’ll pass on your judgment on comedy.

        2. Oh, please, fuck off and die, lefty pile of shit. Not funny at all.

        3. If you don’t think he’s funny, that’s almost a guarantee that he’s fucking hilarious.

    2. Youre the blue pulled libertarian. Yes you’ll hate him.

    3. libertarians like you, if you can even call yourself one, are worth less than nothing to people who want more freedom. Go suck down some vaccines

    4. This was predictable.

    5. Hear hear.

      1. Fuck off and die, pile of lefty shit.

    6. “Dave Smith a major tool…”

      This from the TDS-addled asshole Brandy/turd, who is still trying to justify his adolescent focus on personality in the last election.
      Hint, asshole: No one is buying it. You were and are:
      Full.
      Of.
      Shit.
      Make the world a better place: Fuck off and die.

    7. amen. He’s so sure of himself that his way/Ron Paul’s way is the best to bring in more libertarians. He has no evidence to back this and I’m pretty sure saying you have no desire to get the covid vaccine would drive even more people away from a liberty movement. He’s also an unfunny sarcastic asshole so there’s that too.

  7. Smith is quick to attack fellow libertarians whom he thinks are naive about how the state maintains its power. He’s said that he’d “take a red-pilled leftie over a blue-pilled libertarian any day.”
    Perfect description of Reason Magazine! Surprised Reason printed it. Of course, they can’t see themselves in that comment.

    1. My thoughts exactly. And the problem I have with Reason is every writer promotes the left “libertarian” agenda in lockstep formation. There are a lot of libertarians who are still old school classical liberals. But you will not see their perspective represented here except in the comments.

      1. Nick has been pretty consistent through the Trump years. But they definitely brought in some very left leaning folks. You can tell they are blue-pill libertarians when they spend half their time fretting that many libertarians must obviously be racist.

        1. You can tell they are blue-pill libertarians when they spend half their time fretting that many libertarians who advocate for smaller government must obviously be racist.

          FIFY. Doesn’t matter if they’re more pro-Black than Lincoln was, if their views on (e.g.) sending foreign aid to Africa could be construed as racist, they’re out.

          1. Are we reading the same articles?

            1. Yes. But you aren’t understanding them. You only look for confirmation to bolster your hatred of conservatives. You don’t actually pay attention to principles.

              Your liberal to conservative outrage is 99.5%/0.5% despite one party recently reducing taxes, regulations, and no new wars while the other promotes taxes, spending, wars, regulations, CRT.

              But you knew that.

            2. Are we reading the same articles?

              They aren’t real. How would you know or possibly be convinced? I read several articles about superficially credible accusations against a SCOTUS nominee, an article about how Ted Cruz hates classically liberal values, and an article about how country hicks should move to the city, and an article about how living in New York is both a blessing when getting fucked by the government stops and a curse when it starts… again. I have no idea what articles you’ve been reading. More importantly, since you yourself seem to think they aren’t real. There’s no reason for me to care.

            3. “Are we reading the same articles?”

              Are we to assume you can read?

        2. You can tell they are blue-pill libertarians when they spend half their time fretting that many libertarians must obviously be racist.

          That’s because many libertarians are, in fact, quite obviously racist. You need not look further than this comment section.

          1. You dont have to keep defending your team.

            Which comment was racist?

            1. None.
              Chipper is a lefty shit who really is not interested in ‘facts’; too boring.

          2. Who’s a racist libertarian here? I know some of the leftists slip up and let their racism show, but I’ve never seen libertarians do that.

          3. Lew Rockwell and his followers (Dave Smith) have entered the chat.

          4. I see you’re still trying to beat shrike at his own game. You can’t put stupid The Plug, no matter how hard you try.

  8. Dave Smith is just Liberty Hangout from 2 years ago.

    No real libertarianism, all culture war.

    1. Politics is downstream of culture. Libertarianism needs to be a mindset, not a political party. The culture is the absolute right place for that fight.

      1. You’re right.

        On one hand, libertarians should be bringing a “live and let live” mindset to the culture and should be vocal about that. Because the left is bringing a “snitch on your neighbors” mindset as we speak. That is not a society we want to live in.

        1. so much for freedom of speech, amiright?!

          1. “so much for freedom of speech, amiright?!”

            No, you’re full of shit. I AM right.

          2. Definitely a parody.

      2. The culture wars are all about trying to force particular cultural choices on people. How does “fighting the culture war” comport with a live and let live attitude?

        1. Want me to mink to the mask discussion earlier?

        2. One side of the culture war is trying to force particular cultural choices on people. You really don’t know what’s going on outside your pedantic bubble.

    2. he has been more vocally against lockdowns and vaccine mandates than this rag has been the past two years. This place is a fucking shithole filled with blue-pilled vaccine gargling cucks

      1. And yet here you are.

        1. And yet here you are again, lefty shit.

      2. “This place is a fucking shithole filled with blue-pilled vaccine gargling cucks”

        Vaccine gargling cucks?

        Are you anti-vaccine? To which everyone should understand as meaning anti-modern medicine?

    3. “No real libertarianism, all culture war.”

      So he called you on your bullshit and now you’re pissed?

      1. Dave read Rothbard once and stopped there. He has no theory behind anything he does. Which is why he never gives any actual answer or proposal in the entire interview. How many “well, I don’t actually know”s did we hear in the interview. Oh, end the war on drugs you say? Wow, really breaking some new ground there Adam Smith.

        Dave is more concerned with lesbians ruining libertarianism for him than he is with knowing what libertarianism actually looks like.

  9. Yeah we’re gonna see some LP electoral votes, national offices, and state level positions now.

    Phft.

  10. Does every rising LP member just jump from newbie to running for President? What happened to running for Congress? Or the state legislature, where they might actually be able to campaign and compete?

    1. What makes you say that they don’t? Maybe they do, but it gets so little attention that nobody notices except for the other 17 libertarians in the 100,000 person district.

    2. In recent history, plenty are Republicans who’ve run their campaigns into the ground and jump ship in a last ditch effort to stay relevant.

      I mean, what’s Justin Amash, chopped liver? (Hint: Yes.) Or Reason’s other darling, what was his name? Oh, yeah, Jeff Flake.

      1. “Oh, yeah, Jeff Flake.”

        Speaking of Reason being blue pilled.

  11. Libertarianism in the US is dead. The US is full of people who think the universe owes them wealth, power, cheap third world labor, free healthcare, and a big retirement portfolio, and if they don’t get it, they are going to bomb someone. (And among those people are many Reason writers.)

    1. I’d like to believe that the “silent majority,” as in people like me who are so fed up with the two major parties that they refuse to even register to vote, are libertarians.

      Thing is, people with no desire to have power over others don’t seek power over others.

      That’s the libertarian conundrum. It’s like herding cats. You’ve got a pool of people who don’t want to rule over others, and you’ve got to find one of them who will convince voters who want a ruler to instead select the person who wants to dismantle the power structure.

      Then you’ve got to convince the silent majority of people who don’t want power over others to outvote those who want a ruler.

      I dunno, man.

      1. I think that’s a very relevant discussion if you really want to shrink government. Democrats take pride in growing government. Republicans talk a good talk and then grow government.

        But will anyone talk about herding these libertarian cats into the voting booth to voluntarily choose someone who will make a difference, who isn’t an R or D?

        Well?

        1. Your fake justification for one sided attacks is just that, fake justification. You ignore small steps as mentioned above and stay quiet about large steps towards authority. Youre a hypocrite, not an idealist.

      2. Libertarians seek “power over others” through corporate slavery. Work for pennies or starve. They vote to ensure the wealthy can horde their gold and have plenty of cheap labor at their disposal.

        1. See what I said above about ignorant, entitled, privileged, greedy Americans? That means you, “shawn_dude.”

          If you think low income workers in the US are underpaid, you have seen nothing yet. US incomes are first going to drop to European levels and eventually to world average levels. Or why do you think American workers deserve to get paid more than German workers or Brazilian workers or Indian workers?

        2. Youre invited to sarcasmics next BBQ.

        3. “Work for pennies or starve.”

          Hey look, it’s false choice time!

          There is such a gigantic range of possibilities to earn a living. A big part of libertarian thought is to try to maximize those choices, so people are NOT forced into a horrible dilemma. This happens by minimizing the constraints that seek to narrow people’s choices. And those constraints mainly come from the state. Libertarianism properly understood is the opposite of what you claim. It is the hyperregulated economy favored by statists who force these types of horrific choices because they choke off all other ways to earn a living.

        4. “Libertarians seek “power over others” through corporate slavery…”

          Lefty shits assume their fantasies have some connection to reality. Hint, lefty asshole shawn: They don’t.

        5. Lol. Again, well done. You had us all going. I’m guessing Nail?

      3. Most Americans “fed up” with the two major parties are not libertarians, they are simply people to whom government doesn’t deliver the goodies they desire.

      4. “…I dunno, man.”

        Could sum up every one of your comments, steaming pile of lefty shit.

  12. Dear JesseAz,

    PLEASE STOP HUMPING MY FUCKING LEG!!!!

    Sincerely,

    sarcamsic

    1. Stop trolling buddy. I’ve responded to every one of your comments drunk fuck.

    2. Another stain on my pantleg. Fuck.

      1. Man you cry a lot instead of being an adult and being able to refute criticism.

        1. “Man you cry a lot instead of being an adult and being able to refute criticism.”

          He would have to demonstrate an intelligence beyond 5th-grade level, and that seems quite unlikely.

      2. It’s amazing how you can be an enormous hypocrite while you’re drunk, and yet still feel hard-done-by.

        You boast about how you mute people, and then rail against Ken for muting you. You spend the whole thread being an ass and trying to bait Jesse, and then bitch when he’s mean to you back.

        You’re like sixty or something, sarcasmic. It’s time to grow the fuck up.

        1. Really?! 60-going-on-12?
          Amazing! I thought it was only M4e with that disorder.

      3. “Another stain on my pantleg. Fuck.”

        It seems interesting that lefty shits like jeff assume we are interested in their erotic fantasies.

        1. Ooops; sarc. I really have a hard time telling them apart, and maybe they are not ‘apart’.

    3. What, you want he should hump your nonfucking leg?

    4. Sounds likes a man crush.

  13. This rag is lucky to have actual libertarians still show up once in a while. You clowns are nothing but establishment boot lickers.

  14. Dave seems like someone who actually supports libertarian viewpoints, has read folks like Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, and yes Ron Paul and doesn’t run when confronted by “uncomfortable” but morally correct positions like so many of the Reason writers.

    Seriously..Reason recently had some Federal Reserve apologist, the NYT “libertarian blogger” who was a libertarian like a neocon is a conservative (she checked all the boxes), has writers defending movies like “cuties” and an obsession with open borders and abortion..Federal Reserve, Big Govt, Deficit Spending, Wars and yes the obvious issues around “diversity, inclusion, equity” as they conflict with liberty. Matt isn’t a libertarian in any meaningful way, ENB seems to be some leftie liberal and the rest seem to be killing time while they wait for a Salon or Slate or NYT (their dream job) gig. Playing the “left libertarian” makes them stand out with the friends in cosmo land where they live…or maybe helps them get laid..who knows…

    But Dave is not “smart” huh? Sure bring back Cathy Young, Max Boot and all these cosmo wokes…or Nick Swarwark?

  15. Find The Call Girls 16+ Satta King Online Site.

  16. I haven’t finished it yet. But first, thanks Reason, this is much better than most of your written stuff.
    Ok, to the social media problem: I think the solution is in the TOS. What if congress passed a law saying that the TOS contract had to include language saying you could only be banned (the provider breaking the contract) if you violated TOS related to harrasment, illegal behavior, or things the Government is allowed to squelch speech for? Then if somebody is banned for political views, questioning the official narrative, etc., then the banned person can sue for breach of contract. I look forward to being corrected; please be kind.

    1. Conservatives (judges, legislators, and other activists on the right) have spent decades working to make it harder for consumers, employees, etc. (i.e., ordinary people) to sue big business. Reducing the ability to set up class action suits, or even to sue in a court instead of sticking to clauses in agreements and contracts that mandate binding arbitration (with the corporations having the advantage there as the side that are the repeat customers of the supposedly neutral arbitrators), and so on. Along with conservative legislators always looking for ways to generally get corporations free from liability and to reduce jury awards and other kinds of ‘tort reform’, all in the name of sticking it to ‘greedy’ plaintiff’s lawyers, generally rig the civil justice system in favor of big corporations with the deep pockets to hire an army of lawyers that would bleed any average person dry that tries to fight them.

      If anyone thinks that left-leaning Big Tech companies wouldn’t take full advantage of this against conservatives fighting being de-platformed, they’d be fooling themselves.

    2. “What if congress passed a law saying that the TOS contract had to include language saying you could only be banned (the provider breaking the contract) if you violated TOS related to harrasment, illegal behavior, or things the Government is allowed to squelch speech for?”

      The problem with this rule is that it prevents people from setting up special interest forums. The real problem with YouTube and FB and Twitter is that they are dominant players that started out trying to be a public square. But a lot of people want a forum about their local city, or about knitting, or about a school or even conservative politics. A rule like above would allow assholes, trolls and political nutjobs to just brigade in and hijack the forum.

      This already happens all the time on Reddit. There will be a sub dedicated to something like libertarianism, and periodically the socialists on post-capitalism or whatever will just march on over and shit up the comments.

      As a private owner of a forum, you should have the right to setup the forum you want. You shouldn’t be forced to choose between “forum where anyone can do anything” and “no forum at all”.

      1. As a private owner of a forum, you should have the right to setup the forum you want. You shouldn’t be forced to choose between “forum where anyone can do anything” and “no forum at all”.

        This exactly. The issue isn’t that moderation and “deplatforming” and the like based on political views shouldn’t ever happen, just that it becomes problematic when it happens on the few platforms that reach tens of millions of Americans at once.

      2. I hadn’t thought of that. I’ll keep thinking about it.

  17. Who is worse, the Democrats or the Republicans? To me there is an easy answer to the question. Whom ever is in power. When The Democrats control most of the power then they are the worst and when the Republicans control most of the power then they are the worse. The best case is when neither of these basket case political parties are in power.

    I’m not a “Purest” of any thing and flatly reject the “Purest” argument. People and and should be who they are and not pretend to be some idealistic “Purest” version of themselves.

    Will I vote for a Democrat or a Republican? Sure, if there isn’t a better alternative and I feel that one or the other is better than the other available candidate. I would rather have the less rotten candidate win than refuse to vote out of principle.

    If the two candidates are equally rotten and there isn’t a better alternative, then I will either write in a name or simply not vote for that race.

    I would prefer Jo Jorgensen, Dave Smith or Nick Gillespie over the life-time political basket case we have with Joe Biden and the tyrant Kamala Harris in a heartbeat. It not that I don’t have any disagreements with Jo Jorgensen, Dave Smith or Nick Gillespie, but they pale in comparison to the disagreements I have with Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

    We can’t expect a fell-swoop or change overnight. Bettering our situation will be more of a evolution than a revolution. We need to sway the masses and open up their eyes to the fallacies they have been sold for decades. This will take time and effort, and some people will respond to shock, but others need gentle persuasion.

    1. I would prefer Jo Jorgensen, Dave Smith or Nick Gillespie over the life-time political basket case we have with Joe Biden and the tyrant Kamala Harris in a heartbeat. It not that I don’t have any disagreements with Jo Jorgensen, Dave Smith or Nick Gillespie, but they pale in comparison to the disagreements I have with Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

      President of the United States is not an entry-level job. No one should consider voting for someone without a proven track record at a high level of responsibility. Ideally, that would include executive experience, as being the person in charge at the top is different than being one of many legislators. I would look more to those that had been governors and/or secretaries of major federal departments, and I would stay away from people that had only ever been in business or the military prior to running for president.

      That last bit isn’t targeted at Trump. I just think that not all of the skills that are required for business success translate well to politics. Business is about focus on the bottom line, whereas politics is about building coalitions and compromise with people with different goals. And Ike and George Washington notwithstanding, I think that we should avoid electing generals with long military careers. I think it is better to keep the political and military leadership separate.

      But the main issue is that whatever background a person has when they run for president, they should be clearly successful at that prior to anyone thinking that they’d be worthy of the enormous responsibility of being President of the United States.

      Neither Obama nor Trump were clearly distinguished in their realms prior to campaigning for President. Obama’s success was in running for office. He was not known as a savvy legislator, able to build coalitions and consensus to get important bills passed. Trump was known to have, at best, a mixed record as a businessman. He had plenty of money, but he had also lost enormous amounts of money, and not just his own. Plenty of people that invested in his projects lost a lot along with him.

      George W. Bush and Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan had been successful governors fairly popular in their states. George H.W. Bush had been Reagan’s VP for eight years and served in government at various levels (Congress and as CIA director) prior to that.

      If libertarians want to vote for a libertarian for President, they should be finding people that will build a record of success worthy of that job. A resume without anything to give confidence that they can be successful at achieving their goals and governing well in a crisis is just not going to cut it.

Please to post comments