How Should Libertarians Think About Ron DeSantis?
Reason's Zach Weissmueller and the New York Post's Karol Markowicz talk about life under the most controversial governor in America.

No governor is more cheered and hated right now than Florida Republican Ron DeSantis, currently in the news for flying around 50 Venezuelan migrants to Martha's Vineyard to own the libs. The 44-year-old Navy veteran and double-Ivy-Leaguer also headlined the third National Conservatism Conference, where he emphasized that the state should punish and reward businesses and individuals based on political positions.
Controversially, DeSantis has yanked longstanding tax breaks for Walt Disney Corporation after the company criticized his stance on gay rights, signed legislation that would limit social media platforms' ability to moderate content and users (the law has been blocked by a federal court), banned mask mandates in public schools, and issued an executive order prohibiting businesses from requiring proof of vaccination from customers. He's also pushed cities such as Gainesville to abandon zoning reform aimed at creating more diverse, multi-family housing.
If such top-down edicts seem at odds with traditional conservative support for local decision making and letting businesses act however they want, DeSantis has also gotten high marks for mostly keeping K-12 schools open during the pandemic and overseeing a boom in people moving to Florida to escape lockdowns elsewhere. When COVID death rates are adjusted for the age of residents, Florida's rate (275 per 100,000) draws close to California's (267 per 100,000), while both are below the national average (302 per 100,000). He's a strong supporter of gun rights and signed a $1.2 billion tax break package this spring, promising even more cuts if he gets reelected in November. Despite increased levels of spending each year of his governorship, the state is currently sitting on a $22 billion budget surplus.
So how should libertarians think about Ron DeSantis? Is he "a retaliatory culture warrior" and the leading indicator of an "authoritarian convergence" of the right and left? Or is he a successful large-state governor, the future of the Republican party, and, quite possibly, the next president of the United States? How should libertarians think about his mix of bullying and bravura that is turning the Sunshine State from a joke to one of the hottest destinations in the country?
I recently hosted a conversation about DeSantis and Florida with two recent blue-state refugees: Reason Senior Producer Zach Weissmueller, who pulled up stakes in California, and New York Post columnist Karol Markowicz, who hightailed it out of New York.
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
according to your 5 articles a day Reason, we should think FL man bad
Flying 50 Venezuelan asylees from Texas to Martha’s Vineyard was a dick move, and Reason writer’s called him out on it. That is not the same as saying everything about him is bad.
Cite?
I just worked part-time from my apartment for 5 weeks, but I made $30,030. I lost my former business and was soon worn out. Thank goodness, [res-02] I found this employment online and I was able to start working from home right away. This top career is achievable by everyone, and it will improve their online revenue by:.
.
EXTRA DETAILS HERE:>>> https://extradollars3.blogspot.com/
^ LOL! White Mike gets pwned by an amazingly timed spam post.
I work from home providing various internet services for an hourly rate of $80 USD. I never thought it would be possible, but my trustworthy friend persuaded (emu-05) me to take the opportunity after telling me how she quickly earned 13,000 dollars in just four weeks while working on the greatest project. Go to this article for more information.
…..
——————————>>> https://smart.online100.workers.dev/
Causing an immigration crises of over 2 million is much worse. But you ignore that fact.
50+ dying in a trailer is not a dick move. Sending them to prog utopia MV is.
Also, flying thousands all over the country at night secretly = not a dick move.
Publicly sending 50 = dick move.
That is not the same as saying everything about him is bad.
What is the same as saying everything about him is bad is saying that everything he says and does is bad and that he has absolutely no redeeming qualities. That's Reason on DeSantis in a nutshell.
If they have said anything nice about him, I missed it.
A lot of his moves have been questionable on pure libertarian grounds, but at the very least he should be celebrated for handling covid as well as anyone with minimal public health authoritarianism. After pretty much the worst attack on individual rights ever, libertarians should be a lot more focused on that.
You forget that Mike thought we should all be locked down for as long as the government thought necessary. He’s just uberlibertarian like that.
Revealingly it was a good move for the Venezuelans.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11220963/Cape-Cod-military-base-50-migrants-chowed-shipped-Marthas-Vineyard.html
It was a dick move to leftists because it hurt their political interests.
The key takeaway is noting interest Laursen supports. Whoops. When you talk so much you can't help but reveal your true priorities.
How the fuck is flying illegals from a state that doesn’t have the resources to deal with them and frankly doesn’t want them, to a state that is a self proclaimed Sanctuary State a dick move? Explain this to everyone. It’s a dick move because the rich white cocksucking progressives that vote this shit in don’t actually won’t to deal with it. They just want to virtue signal that they tolerate brown people if they have a toilet brush or leaf blower in hand. Don’t be the fucking slimy weasel that you are and disappear or bOaF SidEs your way out of this one.
Pretty well said, Dariush. It's funny how the feds are not only subsidizing the illegal entrants, making the serfs pay for them (taxation without representation) instead of the ones pushing for cheap labor and cheap domestics, and cheap Dem votes.
Yes. He should have left them where they were so they could have enjoyed "Migrant Kids in Biden Administration's Tent Camp Faced Distress and Panic Attacks Because of Dysfunction" instead of the comforts of an affluent beach town with tons of cash and available jobs.
He should have had them shot in the back of the head you damned pedophile.
Florida man bad. Really, really bad. As a jew, Florida man more bad than mustache bad man.
You aren't funny, people don't admire you.
You are a sad, sad immature boy.
Look just come out and say you're gay. It's 2022 FFS.
Exactly. Reason Editors' obsession with the man tells me he's alright.
Say what you will, this Miami citizen thinks Ron Desantis is the closest thing to a ilbertarian-thinking governor in the country right now.
Other states happily joining the federal government's current subsidizing and inentivizing of mass illegal immigration, and the de facto legalizing of cartel smuggling operations with people and drug smuggling logistics support, these are oppressive policies.
How should libertarians think about his mix of bullying and bravura that is turning the Sunshine State from a joke to one of the hottest destinations in the country?
The rational among us will recognize a viable, "least unlibertarian" option when we see one. DeSantis sounds a lot like Trump, the "least unlibertarian" president in decades whose successor only makes more obvious on a daily basis.
And Florida was never the joke, Florida man was, is and always shall be. Long live Florida man!
No, the entire idea of participating in the game of accepting the least worst leadership is not rational at all.
It’s being a sucker. It’s supporting bad government. It’s short term thinking.
I plan on voting for that nude guy who danced around at the Libertarian convention in 2024 because I won't compromise my principles.
Chris Christie?
That naked-dancing idiot almost killed the Libertarian party. Is that your point?
Yes, because your support of Biden and the election of biden hasn't supported bad government in any way.
Just such idiocy.
Long term thinking is not allowing things to continue to escalate to much worse outcomes which is what happened in 2020.
the game of accepting the least worst leadership is not rational at all
Displaying a complete ignorance of history and general lack of imagination as usual.
Accepting the least worst option is a founding principle of our Republic. Electing a President was the least worst option over crowning King George. Considering the hissy fit that Jefferson threw when he lost, Adams was probably least worst. Jefferson over Burr…
We have been choosing the least-worst option since the beginning. That is the essence of a Democratic Republic. That is why people who detest DJT still argue that he is a better option than Biden.
Call me crazy, but shouldn't libertarians figure that out for themselves? And not be told by some retard?
You’re crazy.
Look at speedy here expecting adults to think for themselves.
Personally, I'm almost always looking for where the most individual liberty is retained. I have no faith in Reason editors to even bear that concept in mind.
It is a sign of the ugliness of your soul that you use that word.
The irony of a "libertarian" telling other "libertarians" "how to think" is apparently lost on the author.
state should punish and reward businesses and individuals based on political positions
I recall all the conservative gum-flapping during Obama's first term about him "picking winners and losers".
NO FAIR! GOVERNMENT MOTORS! DERP! BLOOP! HUNTER BIDENS LAPTOP!!!!!!
Correct. The only time the government should interfere with private businesses is when it benefits the public good. Like when Michael Bloomberg banned large soda cups in NYC for your health.
And when MI guv Whitmer banned flavored vapes. For the children!
Top
MenWomenz!And if government can't do it they should encourage corporations to tell people how to act correctly through influence.
You mean feeding the homeless, I think
SARAH PALIN’S BUTTPLUG 2 a few years back you posted kiddy porn to this site, and your initial handle was banned. The link below details all the evidence surrounding that ban. A decent person would honor that ban and stay away from Reason. Instead you keep showing up, acting as if all people should just be ok with a kiddy-porn-posting asshole hanging around. Since I cannot get you to stay away, the only thing I can do is post this boilerplate. https://reason.com/2022/08/06/biden-comforts-the-comfortable/?comments=true#comment-9635836 Don’t respond to SPB, just shun him. #FillingInForOvert
Die in a fucking grease fire you kiddie diddling piece of shit.
Well, he oppose Marxist public school indoctrination, sexualizing prepubescent children, treating all companies equal under the law, and with the Martha's Vinyard thing it shows that people should live up to the values they say they have.
I can see why the reason writers hates him.
Fascist! If the teacher's union can't teach white kids that they are responsible for slavery AND the Holocaust, what kind of country will we be living in? A far right anti-Semitic country FYI.
Who is the second most controversial governor?
Governor Gimp.
My governor (Kemp) has turned out to be downright meek compared to the other R governors. And he is sailing to victory over the irritating Stacey Abrams. He tries to avoid stunts like the others pulled.
You really think strong beautiful Black woman Stacey Abrams will be cheated out of the governorship for the second time?
Because we both know how serious Democrats are about denouncing ELECTION DENIERS. So with Abrams and so many other Democrats declaring her first loss illegitimate, the evidence for foul play must be overwhelming. I'd hate to see it happen again. 🙁
#BlackGirlMagic
Oh sure, some people say she lost, but she won’t admit it.
Funny, that voting rights bill --- that increased participation --- certainly pissed off people by the truckload last year.
Maybe worrying about "What will piss off the left?" is a stupid game to play.
Rest assured reason will make sure it's a governer with an r next to the nam
How Should Libertarians Think
Totalitarian Liberty.
Choose or die!
Indeed.
What would the leftist progressives at Reason know about libertarians, much less attempt to dictate how they should think.
That's modern libertarianism. You just reformulate progressive talking points by interpolating the word "Fweedom!!" generously.
Younger libertarians care more about social and personal issues.
They tired of listening to older libertarians squabble about a point or two in the top marginal tax rate which is what the two parties do.
It actually makes sense.
Go ENB!
Nothing worse than an endorsement from SPB.
Younger libertarians care more about social and personal issues.
Younger than 12?
For him yes.
Seems to be his preferred target range for fapping.
Yet you don't mention Libertarians for Life.
Hmmmmm
Maybe we should ask you what you mean by that slippery non-phrase: social and personal issues.
Libertarians for Life
One popular misconception is that libertarianism as a political principle supports choice on abortion. And major elements within the libertarian movement (the Libertarian Party, for example) take abortion-choice stands. Nonetheless, libertarianism's basic principle is that each of us has the obligation not to aggress against (violate the rights of) anyone else -- for any reason (personal, social, or political), however worthy. That is a clearly pro-life principle. Recognizing that, and seeing the abortion-choice drift within the libertarian movement, Libertarians for Life was founded in 1976 to show why abortion is a wrong under justice, not a right.
Glad he got some retard cunt from the Washington post to talk about DeSantis and libritarians. Nick I think the hair jell has seeped into your brain
Libertarianism for "us" but not for "them", basically.
As all the things DeSantis is criticised for are inflictions on "them", whether it's Disney, Big Social, or brown asylum seekers, that doesn't imperil his libertarian credentials for people who like to see "them" on the receiving end of big gubmint.
I know. Putting the individual in front of government and corporations is the worst.
Oh, lots of individuals as well, but those were some of the most recent and obvious instances. The "Don't say 'gay'" act is another one that affects individuals.
But you're obviously fine with what he did to asylum seekers, which kinda proves my point.
Affects some individuals...
Yes, like not letting them groom underage students. By the way, please point out where the parental rights bill has the word "gay" in it.
In this case shrike things teachers should be able to overrule parents.
Surely all libertarians believe government agents should overrule citizen preferences, especially on policies regarding children. That's just Libertarianism 101.
But, wait, some parents are teachers so that is contradictory, It is some parent overruling your parenting but not letting you do likewise. Do you think most teachers send their kids to public schools if they can avoid it ?
"A little more than 21% of public school teachers have children K-12 currently enrolled in private schools right now"
>>what he did to asylum seekers
asylum seekers lol.
He took them to where he told them he would take them and they willingly signed up. The horror.
I do like the implication that sending them to Massachusetts was dooming them to hell.
No it didn't. It effected state employees shrike. Adults were free to groom the children whenever they wanted even after the law.
SRG, it is equally valid to call it the "Don't Say Straight" bill. Just because morons do not read it does not mean you should not do so yourself.
"Putting the individual in front" would mean supporting privatizing the schools. That way EACH individual gets the education that each one freely chooses.
But that is not what you support. You support one group of individuals, conservatives, imposing their viewpoint onto the schools, in opposition to another group of individuals (everyone else) who doesn't.
You don't support the liberty of individuals as a general principle. You support the liberty of individuals with whom you can identify. The ones who are like you. That makes you a narcissist, not a defender of individual liberty.
Well this was another retarded rant by Jeff.
*Sigh*
BOTH are the goal.
Until schools are privatized, there need to be protections in the public schools. You cannot just say "Groom away until this entire system is changed". It is as asinine as opening borders before reducing the welfare state.
Huge surprise, they are wrong but you are wrong-er !!!
A little more than 21% of public school teachers have children K-12 currently enrolled in private schools right now
He sent the asylum seekers to a city which had adopted a sanctuary city policy, and which did have more than 50 jobs available. But the residents freaked out and brought in the National Guard. There's racism here but it's not on Ron DeSantis' part.
There's plenty of racism to go around.
Why is it so hard for your team to even criticize the fact that he manipulated and exploited powerless migrants to serve in the cause of his stunt?
I get it, you hate liberals and you hate progressives. That doesn't mean that everything that a Republican does is automatically wonderful.
This stunt of DeSantis has absolutely clarified who among here are genuinely interested in liberty, and who are simply Team Red fanbois and/or Team Blue haters, and wear a pretense of supporting liberty as a mask.
Please prove the manipulation. Instead we have evidence given to the migrants clearly showing destination and terms.
We get you think brown people are retarded and you their white savior. But that is your own racism.
Maybe actually prove they were manipulated?
Let's see what happens with the hurricane and wait for the explanation of how it's the governor's fault.
At least Biden will have an incentive to make federal relief swift and efficient, so as to show DeSantis up. Which would be a good thing for the impacted area.
I sincerely hope that Biden provides federal relief only at cost and doesn't try to gouge Florida.
Not sure Biden has the capacity to GOUGE Florida. Fuck up the response? That's expected of his crew. But they cannot jack up the cost and expect a state to pay it.
… hurricane and wait for the explanation of how it’s the governor’s fault.
Of course it is, he didn’t do enough about climate global warming changes.
How Should Libertarians Think About Ron DeSantis?
That he's been among the most effective politicians standing against the overtly totalitarian far-left regime currently controlling every major institution in the nation?
however any libertarian wants to think about Ron Desantis
also you'd think at least Bailey would be by with the Climate Armageddon piece about all that new natural gas in the atmosphere above the Baltic
Climate is the biggest aspect of Russia sabotaging pipelines, according to Bloomberg.
are you doing a Germans bombed Pearl Harbor thing?
Well this is an outcomes-first lolbertarians rag, so why not judge him on Florida's economy?
Those aren't the kind of outcomes they're interested in.
Your confusing is with was
Is he "a retaliatory culture warrior"...
As I've said before, retaliation is a response to the initiation of aggression. So, if DeSantis is a retaliatory culture warrior, the people he's responding to are the initiators of aggression - aggressive culture warriors. If you're a libertarian, and ostensibly believe in the Non-Aggression Principle, one would think one's sympathies shouldn't lie with the initiators of aggression.
The use of the government as an instrument to reward allies and punish adversaries is hardly novel. Novel for conservatives, perhaps. But, the left has employed the strategy since time immemorial. Hell, we live in a time when the federal and allied state governments are engaged in the systematic suppression of a former president and his political allies. Or need I remind anyone of the treatment of Chick-fil-A by various progressive governments? Or the plan to deny school lunch funding to districts that reject gender-fluid education? I'm sure those things must have slipped Nick's mind and when he remembers them, he'll be genuinely disturbed by them.
And against all that you have de facto slavery until WWII - supported by state governments, civil rights violations requiring Federal law to remedy, etc. all carried out by conservatives, and now you whiny bitches are complaining about aggression from the left?
Poor schneeflocken.
The South was Democrat during Jim Crow.
GREAT REVERSAL!!!!
Regardless of party, they were conservatives - decent, law abiding white folk. Just like you!
Oh. So thats why the democrats had to write laws like Jim Crow to force a behavior people weren't doing on their own. Sounds just like democrats today.
You really are an idiot shrike.
Fuck off. Jim Crow laws were passed by white conservatives. The particular label they attached to themselves doesn't matter.
There is no equivalent to anything the Democrats are doing today - though no doubt you can always find some right-wing douche to say that a restriction on magazine capacity is like slavery.
Ummmm Biden is bought by the ccp which literally has slave labor camps
Jim crow was passed by white democrats. Literally.
And the laws were passed due to the populace not doing what the democrats thought was correct culturally. This is exactly what democrats are doing today.
How are you so ignorant?
The particular label they attached to themselves doesn’t matter.
Because this is your religion.
Progressives want to resegregate higher education.
"Regardless of party, they were conservatives"
"Regardless of party"?
Nah, that does not wash.
They were Democrats --- who are STILL the racist party of this country. And few are more racist than the lily-white progressives
Were you sleeping in the forest when Hillary said that and the whole world jumped on her ?
I don't give a shit. It could have been Mennonites. They were conservatives, regardless of party.
So you're arguing that Democrats were assholes 100 years ago, therefore Democrats have the right to be assholes today?
They are the same assholes. It is democrats continuing to pursue segragation.
Bigoted social conservatives are assholes regardless if they are Democrats or Republicans.
Or do you think that a bigot wearing the label of Republican is somehow more moral than a bigot wearing the label of Democrat?
That's an imbecilic argument and offensive. It's akin to saying Hitler is bad. Nickleback is bad. Therefore Nickleback is Hitler. You're equating not believing that racism systematically explains differences in racial performance (which Thomas Sowell made a career out of debunking) with Jim Crow and actual slavery. No, numbnuts. One is entirely different from the others and there is an order of magnitude of difference between the other two.
But, even then, you're still ignoring my point. If you really are a "radical individualist", it's pretty damned hard to say with a straight face that the fact that someone who kinda sorta looks like someone alive today did bad things to someone who kinda sorta looks like the allies of some set of people who are aggressing today, justifies the aggression. Or makes their initiation of aggression somehow less so. That's just stupid.
Every single "progressive" policy -- not just on the issue of race, but on any issue, social or economic -- is utterly stupid, unjust, and immoral.
Another faithful religious leftist who has replaced the word devil with the word conservative.
Jesse , you always think that if you attack someone then one has to be right and the other wrong. But you are consistently wrong. That happens you know: X criticizes Y and both are in the wrong.
And shrikes mask slips off again. Politics is his religion. Ignore actual facts. Blame all bad on conservatives.
What a good little democrat you are.
Sounds to me like you're engaged in some pretty heavy whataboutism there, SRG. Particularly, since the particular offenses and injustices you cite are unrelated to the particular question I'm addressing.
You don't see that what you regard as the initial aggression is the response to prior aggression from the other side - a side you appear to support.
Keepetting the mask slip shrike. Time for another sock.
"You don’t see that what you regard as the initial aggression is the response to prior aggression from the other side – a side you appear to support."
I thought we HATED Democrats.
We do not?
Jim Crow was awful, but it wasn't "de facto slavery". Plenty of black people made something of themselves during that time in spite of the awful shit they had to deal with.
Jim Crow was worse than merely awful.
Meanwhile, read "Slavery by another name".
Debt peonage was slavery by another name.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/debt-slavery
That some slaves managed to escape the bondage to which they were condemned, does not in any way mitigate the moral horror of slavery. It is the same with Jim Crow.
So sins of the parents are never forgiven?
All right, then.
No, I am not blaming any specific individual for Jim Crow or for slavery. I am stating, however, that just because some people managed to endure an oppressive system does not in any way mitigate the oppression of that system.
And at what point does the system itself cease to be held responsible?
It's only been about 60 years.
How about, when the effects of that oppression cease to be empirically manifested?
Here is a metaphor/thought experiment. Suppose two men, one white and one black, identical in every other way, are starting to run a marathon. However, the judges apply lead weights to the black runner's ankles, because they're a bunch of racist assholes. So as the marathon proceeds, the white man - athletically identical to the black man - pulls ahead, because he is not burdened by the lead weights. Halfway through the marathon, the racist judges are fired and replaced by nonracist judges, who remove the lead weights from the black runner's ankles.
So at the end of the marathon, unsurprisingly, the white runner wins. Did he win "fairly"? After all, for half the marathon, the system was completely fair, right? Did the white runner win because he tried harder? Did the black runner lose because he didn't try hard enough? No, he lost because for half the race, the system was rigged against him, and even though the result demonstrated at the end of the marathon was in the context of a completely fair system, that one result does not tell the whole story of what transpired.
You cannot just look at the final result, or single statistics, and use that to judge the fairness/unfairness of the system in its entirety. You have to look at the entirety of the system as a whole.
Now you might say "but that doesn't apply today, there are no racist judges applying lead weights to anyone, everyone starts off on the same footing". But is that really true, at least metaphorically? I think it is most definitely true that there are a lot fewer racist KKK-type villains overtly oppressing anyone. But the "starting point" for all of us in life, is shaped in large part by our own families and environments and histories, which WERE shaped by the decisions of racist KKK-type villains of the past. So while no one has lead weights applied to their ankles due to oppression, their starting point in life is further behind because their ancestors had lead weights applied to their ankles which kept them back.
So I would say it's no longer fair to blame an oppressive system when the effects of the lead weights from the past are no longer empirically evident. And that can take a while.
Not only did this not answer my question ("It is when I say it is"), but you equated passive actions with active ones.
You may as well have said it's racist to not oppose racism.
Odd. One can see major economic gains in black families up until the 1960s, often following the teachings of booker t Washington. The growth economically was in fact greater than white families. Blacks had high 2 parent household rates. Then the culture switched to government dependence under democrat suggestions. Single parent households exploded, gains economically wiped out.
The behaviors and culture changed as the culture became infected with Marxism and collectivist ideals. Often at the behest of democrats.
Moynihan, a Democrat, even pointed out the cultural shift at the time.
But jeff wants to blame society instead of reality. Always choosing the leftist narrative and the refusal to see how the collectivist behaviors imbued in black culture in the 60s harmed them.
Thomas Sowell rebuts Jeff rather defnitively:
If we wanted to be serious about evidence, we might compare where blacks stood a hundred years after the end of slavery with where they stood after 30 years of the liberal welfare state. In other words, we could compare hard evidence on “the legacy of slavery” with hard evidence on the legacy of liberals.
Despite the grand myth that black economic progress began or accelerated with the passage of the civil rights laws and “war on poverty” programs of the 1960s, the cold fact is that the poverty rate among blacks fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent by 1960. This was before any of those programs began.
Over the next 20 years, the poverty rate among blacks fell another 18 percentage points, compared to the 40-point drop in the previous 20 years. This was the continuation of a previous economic trend, at a slower rate of progress, not the economic grand deliverance proclaimed by liberals and self-serving black “leaders.”
…..
Nearly a hundred years of the supposed “legacy of slavery” found most black children [78%] being raised in two-parent families in 1960. But thirty years after the liberal welfare state found the great majority of black children being raised by a single parent [66%]. Public housing projects in the first half of the 20th century were clean, safe places, where people slept outside on hot summer nights, when they were too poor to afford air conditioning. That was before admissions standards for public housing projects were lowered or abandoned, in the euphoria of liberal non-judgmental notions. And it was before the toxic message of victimhood was spread by liberals.
And that marathon happened to the grandfather of the person telling me how oppressive 'the system' is today.
We have reached the point where people twist themselves into knots to avoid being called 'racist'.
We are dismantling the scientific method and all of mathematics in favor of the ruminations of morons because the morons will call us 'racist' if we don't.
radical individualist for collective guilt?
And against all that you have de facto slavery until WWII – supported by state governments, civil rights violations requiring Federal law to remedy, etc. all carried out by conservatives, and now you whiny bitches are complaining about aggression from the left?
Pathetic application of presentism and a red herring to boot. I'm more concerned about the practice of Marcusian repressive tolerance by today's left than I am about Jim Crow laws that haven't been relevant in over 50 years.
The legacy of Jim Crow and slavery persists to this day. In fact, for the literal meaning of "fact" (and "literal"), one cannot understand the American present without consideration of that legacy.
Look, in 160 years the South hasn't got over losing the Civil war, and we're supposed to pretend that African-American communities got a reset to equal treatment the moment the CRA and VRA were passed? GMAFB.
Do you just regurgitate all the leftist narratives without thought?
No. The advantage of coming to the US as an outsider is that one's perspective tends not to be too burdened by Americans' self-perception.
Here's a thought experiment I devised a while back.
Suppose a group called "Conservatives for the Constitution" on their website claim the following as conservative ideas:
* Support for the constitutional rights of US citizens
* Exercising those constitutional rights as citizens
* Suspicion or scepticism of government in general and the Federal government in particular
* Deference to states' management of state issues
* Belief that constitutional rights must remain in force even and especially during times of adversity.
These are all fairly unremarkable principles that conservatives would be happy to espouse - and in fact commonly do espouse - both here and in the real world.
And now suppose that this group expressed the view that US citizens who happened to be black were having their 5th and 14th amendment rights violated and they went and protested as a result.
Would the right-wingers and conservatives here and elsewhere still regard this group as "true" conservatives?
Lol. You can always count on a prog to live in the past.
But hey, keep harping on collective guilt and grievance. It’s really working well!
That was a lot of words to say yes but you're in denial of it.
I mean your understanding of american history is basically the 1619 project or Howard zinn.
You've ignore actual facts of the history, especially what parties did what, and simply assigned who you perceive as your enemies as responsible. You even say above labels don't matter when in fact they do. The south didn't become conservative until the mid 90s, when an entire generation of democrats died off in the south.
Your lack of knowledge and your desire to make one party responsible for all bad shows you yo be a standard ignorant leftist.
Youre an idiot shrike. That is all you are.
Did their protests then manifestly violate the rights of property owners in multiple cities to the tune of billions of dollars?
Did they deprive multiple people of their lives with these protests?
Not very conservative.
Conservativism , principled conservatism, refuses all ideology so the thought experiment doesn't work. In my experience, many conservatives by your reading are really anti-liberals (Without any code they subscribe to)
The simple answer to your setup is this: The Constitution is about human rights and only human rights, not trans or black or pervert or feminist rights
The legacy of Jim Crow and slavery persists to this day. In fact, for the literal meaning of “fact” (and “literal”), one cannot understand the American present without consideration of that legacy.
No, that's the legacy of the Great Society. Pretty much ever socio-economic factor in black life has devolved or remained static since then, and it's not just in the South, which you'd fucking know if you weren't an ignorant limey.
Misspelled Democrats.
Weird how the South became less racist as it became less Democrat.
Hahahahahahaha, goddamn that is some grade A prime retard.
Well done.
We know Reason writers will mostly vote Democrat regardless. No need to listen to them when you already know the answers.
As Roark said to Toohey, "I don't think of you."
It's amazing that ALL of Reason Editors are left leaning progressives. Not one of them is a righty. Stossel maybe, but he's a free agent really. They don't even try to hide it.
What reasonable Libertarian would hate on DeSantis compared to say, NY Gov Hochul or CA Gov Newsome. They get some criticism here, but it's always weak-sauce whatabout-ism. The answer to this question is: far left progressives that pretend to be Libertarians, such as Reason's staff.
"where he emphasized that the state should punish and reward businesses and individuals based on political positions."
Nick, still not what he said but keep pushing the progressive narrative. Also, even if the GOP started doing this, it's already the MO for the Dems. Of course, Reason either ignores it when their progressive allies do it, or make excuses for it.
"Controversially, DeSantis has yanked longstanding tax breaks for Walt Disney Corporation after the company criticized his stance on gay rights"
DeSantis stance on gay rights had nothing to do with it. Grooming children was the issue. Again Nick, keep pushing the narrative instead of actually reading the legislation.
Of course, Reason has made it perfectly clear that they support teachers talking to K-3 students about gender identity, including providing them with books that show cartoon scenes of children having sexual interactions with adults. And, of course, hiding all of this behavior from parents.
If this is Reason style libertarian-ism, I'll pass.
If those are private K-3 students, and that's what their parents want, I don't think I'd be against most of that. The hiding it from parents? No. The depictions of any sexual activity? I'd be cool with hand-holding, hugs, kissing appropriate for any children's book that featured a heterosexual couple. If I had kids I think I'd enroll them elsewhere.
The problem is that we overtaxed folks mostly can't avoid sending kids to government schools.
You would be okay with ___ for other people's kids. But see, THAT is the problem.
"and issued an executive order prohibiting businesses from requiring proof of vaccination from customers."
Reason magazine, promoting vaccine passports and "show us your papers" style public health policy.
It ain't fascism if we support it --- Reason.
OMG. again.
He is clearly going to run away with it. Anyone who dominates the journo brains this badly is going to win
"currently in the news for flying around 50 Venezuelan migrants to Martha's Vineyard to own the libs."
Well, Reason cannot stop shrieking about it, so "Mission Accomplished"?
Nick, do yourself a favor and google "sanctuary city".
"banned mask mandates in public schools"
Nick, I don't even know what to say. This should be the de facto libertarian position and you find fault with it? He didn't tell kids they couldn't wear a mask if they're disillusioned into thinking they actually work.
Remember when Biden and Democrats attempted to leverage OSHA to force every employee in the US to get the "safe and effective" vaccine? Reason wrote less articles critical of that event, than they've written about 50 illegal immigrants being shipped to sanctuary city, Martha's Vineyard. Quite interesting.
....ban mandating government-owned schools....
FTFY
If by interesting you mean fucking pathetic for the flagship libertarian publication.
"Reason's Zach Weissmueller and the New York Post's Karol Markowicz talk about life under the most controversial governor in America."
So, two progressives. You could pretend a semblance of balance by inviting somebody to the right of Liz Cheney. Was Jennifer Rubin not available?
Flying 50 migrants to a sanctuary city was not only compassionate, but the exact right move.
Except for the whole manipulation of powerless people part, the stunt did have a clarifying effect, that is for sure.
It exposed Team Blue as a bunch of hypocritical virtue-signaling NIMBYs when it came to migrants.
It also exposed Team Red as a bunch of xenophobic bigots eager to dispose of migrants as trash in someone else's backyard if it suits their purposes.
So, the choice is clear now.
Support the hypocritical assholes of Team Blue?
Support the bigoted assholes of Team Red?
Or, decline to support either one?
Jeff is strong with his white savior complex today.
Except for the whole manipulation of powerless people part, the stunt did have a clarifying effect, that is for sure.
The powerless people were going to be manipulated either way.
Either into one of the Obama/Biden human kennels set up, or to a wealthy enclave full of cash and jobs.
Which of those manipulations was compassionate?
This is how libertarians should write about Ron DeSantis, just as one example might go:
Absolutely. Libertarians should totally applaud manipulating and exploiting powerless people for the purposes of being a prop in someone else's political cause so long as they are doing so against the left.
And by no means, do not ever recognize the individual humanity or dignity of the powerless victims. They don't matter. All that matters is pwning the left.
Jeff, you keep calling the people powerless. They have agency and chose to put their lives in the hands of strangers. For that, the bargain they have agreed to is the strangers are now responsible for their well being. Food, shelter, water, facilities.
If I show up and your house and say Jeff, take care of me. and you put me in your car (first checking for bears in the trunk of course) and take me to a part of the city I am unfamiliar with and put me in the hands of a people who have expressed their love of humanity, am I powerless in this situation? Or have I abdicated some agency by making you responsible for my well being?
Jeff is the white savior these people need. He sounds like a sophomore justice warrior on high school.
You are glossing over the alleged fraud that was committed in not disclosing to the Venezuelans where they were actually going.
A. Alleged is the key word. Color me suspicious when a lawyer champions a cause like this. Doubly suspicious that it is only for the MV 50.
B. They have agency and chose to put their lives in the hands of strangers. For that, the bargain they have agreed to is the strangers are now responsible for their well being. Food, shelter, water, facilities.
I don't see that the MV 50 were particularly harmed by the 'alleged' location shift. MV literally has signs in the town welcoming all people. Just not really seems to be the key line they neglected to put on their sign. The pearl clutching about the exploitation is comical considering the amount of exploitation that is actually propagated at the border.
Not sure why you brought up B. I only commented on the alleged fraud.
But you claimed I glossed over the fraud. When I did not mention it at all.
By bringing up B I attempted to respond to the idea of fraud by pointing out, again, that the people in question are putting the responsibility of their lives in the hands of someone else. Where they were taken is not really relevant as the exchange is to take them to a better place than they came from. If the destination were Dallas, TX we would not be talking about fraud at all.
Back up. What right does someone have to let them into the country without vetting them, without a path to citizenship, with federal force dominating a state that DOES NOT WANT THEM
Jeff, do you not see how incredibly racist and demeaning you are towards the migrants?
It would be awesome if you would stop robbing these people of their agency.
Here's another example of how a libertarian might write about DeSantis:
Reason contributor, Brendan O'Neill.
What do the kids say? O'Neill is based AF.
Absolutely. The correct libertarian position is to support the authoritarians on the right, because they are opposed to the authoritarians on the left. Isn't that right?
Oh okay FatJeff Radically Obese we should continue supporting the authoritarians on the left because Orange Man Bad hurt your fee fees. You’re like a bitchy old lady, nag, nag, nag, nag.
He really despises it when the right gives the left a dose of its own repressive tolerance.
Jeff will never understand paternalism of a welfare state is a form of control.
If it hurts your lefty neighbors, it's automatically good.
Or we could kick back to the old days of COVID lockdowns.
My conclusion? Libertarians can think about DeSantis they way they think about MOST politicians. But if we're only THINKING about DeSantis... or Newsom, or Hawley, or Lightfoot, or Bowser, or Biden, or Trump, I'm not sure if DeSantis floats to the top on terrible for "libertarianism". Unless of course, you've swung over to that Emma Goldman Libertarian Marxism thing... at which point, a Newsom is going to be a Totes Libertarian governor: Do whatever you want, maaaan, and the collective will be there to pick up the pieces!
DeSantis is a libertarian hero. No true libertarian supports woketardism.
Amen!
Dear Nick,
Libertarians think for themselves. They have no interest in being told how they should think about anything.
Now kindly go fuck yourself.
Smooch,
UCS
LOL
So Libertarians for Life, you are amending your opposition?
When COVID death rates are adjusted for the age of residents, Florida's rate (275 per 100,000) draws close to California's (267 per 100,000), while both are below the national average (302 per 100,000).
Covid-attributed deaths may have been important 2 years ago but the only good measure now is EXCESS mortality over the covid timeframe.
Keep up hope you were right jfree. Just continue to ignore you were lied to but you were a good soldier.
Yes, and there are people getting demonetized from Youtube for saying perfectly reasonable things about the very possibility of why we have those excess deaths, and what might be driving them.
Literally worse than Hitler. DeSantis is the new orange bad man, super ULTRA MAGA governor of a state that grows oranges and allows hurricanes to occur there. Much worse than Hitler.
Now you have your excuse to vote democrat in the midterms, Reason writers. So run along.
DeSantis's stunt with Martha's Vineyard illustrate the hollowness of the virtue signaling that leftists do. They are a bunch of NIMBY loud mouths who demonize people who have to deal is the effects and strains of migration. It is truly amazing how quickly the lefts in Martha's Vineyard shuffled the migrants and dumped them elsewhere.
I like that DeSantis fights back and questions the narrative being spun by the corporate media and democrat party. I can't say that I believe and trust DeSantis enough to vote for him. He is much better than Crist running for the governor of Florida, but I don't have a vote as I don't live in Florida.
I've listened to Hector Roos, but find him to he whiny. DeSantis is not perfect, but no politician ever is. DeSantis represents a strong challenge to the regime which at this time might be more important than the fallacy of a perfect candidate. Hector Roos isn't a perfect candidate either.
Excellent comment.
Except DeSantis' stunt didn't work. Even if they are secretly all selfist bigots, the people of Martha's Vineyard knew the eyes of the country were on them. They fed the Venezuelans pizza, put them up for the night, and kept them for nearly 48 hours before delivering them to helpful social services.
I see all these anti-immigration conservatives doing victory dances, but the victory dances are over a "win" that only exists withint anti-immigration conservatives' echo chambers.
Except DeSantis’ stunt didn’t work.
It clearly did, because you and your lefty boos whined about it.
"and kept them for nearly 48 hours before delivering them to helpful social services."
Nearly 48 hrs? Man, those border states don't know that type of misery.
And nice way to sugar coat "Having the national guard come in and deport them to a military base".
"We fed them pizza and kept them here for ALMOST TWO DAYS! SANCTUARY!!!"
This post is peak Mike.
No authentic Libertarian supports the insanity of open borders. True Libertarianism is the heart of American Conservatism. Reason.com has sold out to Radicals and Progressive Collectivists.
WTF is "True Libertarianism" with a capital 'T'?
Actual, libertarian Libertarians regularly got roasted by both labor-union-connected so-called liberals and by social conservatives recapitulating 19th century Know Nothing tropes.
Simpson-Mazzoli, a bipartisan bill supported by Ronald Reagan, was derided as a blanket amnesty. My ancestors came over before the safety net, and not becoming a “public charge” was one of the only conditions for being admitted. We could bring that back, but with the asylum seekers (real or pretend) not working for 6 months is part of the process. Labor became anti-immigration when immigrants were seen as competition for jobs. Organized labor is pro-immigration when the immigrants are seen as marks to be organized and voters to be registered.
Asylum aside, I’d be interested in a points-based system, but I don’t know if a human capital basis (education, skills) wouldn’t be transformed into a social justice-oriented one.
The current iteration of Reason is about as aptly named as "anti-fa".
"How Libertarians Should Think About _______" is a stupid oxymoronic title for an article. As a libertarian, I will do my own thinking, thank you. And I love the guy.
HE'S AGAINST CHOPPING THE BREASTS AND PENISES OFF OF TEENAGERS! OH MUH RACISM! HILTER! HITLER! ARRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!
Stopping local governments from coercing people isn't unlibertarian. There's nothing libertarian about "governments can't coerce people unless they're local".
Stopping businesses from doing things they want to isn't great, but compared to the thousands of pages of regulation doing just that I think stopping them from doing vaccine mandates is incredibly minor, especially since the vaccines don't stop the spread.
Putting Disney as a tax burden onto people was dumb, I don't really like it.
I would vote for him over any Democrat.
DeSantis is just another RIGO.
Looks like Reason doesn't think a governor should punish corporations for their political positions? Does Reason then believe that lobbyists should tell politicians what to do and pass legislations to shut up their critics?
How about that special area gifted to Disney to govern it like a corporate controlled city? No problem ey?