Donald Trump

The Cosmopolitan's Case Against Donald Trump or, Make Mine Mises! [Reason Podcast]

Free trade and free migration form the core of the American libertarian identity, says Brian Doherty. And there's nothing wrong with that.

|

Donald Trump has promised to slash taxes, junk regulations, repeal Obamacare, and expand school choice.

Given all that, shouldn't libertarians give him at least a little (maybe even a whole lotta) love?

No, says Reason Senior Editor Brian Doherty in the latest Reason podcast, because Trump is actually trafficking in a "Dangerous Anti-Libertarian Nationalism" that is actually the antithesis of classical liberalism. "Free trade and free migration are…the core of the true classical liberal (libertarian) vision as it developed in America in the 20th century," says Doherty, author of Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern Libertarian Movement. "If you don't understand and embrace them, you don't understand liberty, and you are not trying to further it."

In a wide-ranging conversation, Doherty and Nick Gillespie talk about the rise of Trump and the role of Steve Bannon in the president's administration; why being a "rootless cosmopolite" isn't in any way antithetical to patriotism; and why the great Austrian-born economist Ludwig Von Mises—a Jew who escaped Nazism—provides the strongest possible case against Trump's "America First" message.

Produced by Mark McDaniel.

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

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

Follow us at Soundcloud.

Subscribe to our video channel at iTunes.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

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

NEXT: CPAC: Fiorina Offers a Welcome Counterpoint to Trump's View of Small Government Conservatism

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. Was it a herpetologist or a regular herpaderp that came up with that frog meme? And is Trump properly a frog or a toad?

      1. “Mises makes Captain von Trapp from the Sound of Music look like Wavy Gravy.” lol

  2. As I said on a previous post: Trump is no libertarian on trade and immigration but then neither were any of his presidential predecessors or campaign rivals. There is nothing, as yet, so spectacularly awful either about a president who has promised “great” bilateral trade deals and “big beautiful doors” immigration policy.

    I know you establishment tools would have preferred statism in a Hillary, Jeb or William Weld flavor, but YOUR KIND FUCKING LOST, BIGLY.

    1. I would’ve preferred no statism, but this was the more amusing statism so I’ll take it.

    2. Trump is normalizing authoritarianism in a way none of his predecessors did before. That’s bad.

      1. Bullshit. Trump is trying to return the US to some form of sanity, where immigration laws are actually enforced, local communities can set their own bathroom standards, and people aren’t forced to pay for lifestyle choices they disapprove of. Only someone working for Minitruth would categorize that as “authoritarian”.

        1. Kind of forgot “:The Rise of the Total State and Total War” part of the title.

          1. Huh?

            Clinton wanted the Total State and Total War.

            Trump is utterly disinterested in going to war with anybody, and he wants to cut state power and regulations.

      2. Yep,
        Wilson’s war socialism – not authoritarian.
        Roosevelt’s blue eagle NRA – not authoritarian
        Roosevelt’s sending American citizens to consentration camps in WWII – not authoritarian
        Truman’s attempted nationalization of the entire steel,industry – not authoritarian
        Johnson’s lying the US into a major war – not authoritarian
        Nixon’s wage and price controls – not authoritarian
        Carter’s grain embargo of the SU and preventing US athletes from participating in the Olympics – not authoritarian
        Reagan’s mass firing of air traffic controllers – not authoritarian
        Poppa Bush’s war to protect his Saudi benefactors – not authoritarian
        Clinton’s murder assault on religious weirdos at Waco – not authoritarian
        Bush the lesser’s Iraq war – not authoritarian
        Obama, president drone strike, pen and phone – not authoritarian

    3. FUCK YOU RETARD

    4. Watch it with the F-bombs, unless you really are tying to sound like a millennial progressive.

  3. “Free trade and free migration are…the core of the true classical liberal (libertarian) vision as it developed in America in the 20th century”

    Yeah, I’m not sure what you’re defining as ‘classical liberalism’, but last I checked ‘individual liberty’ is actually the core of classical liberalism.

    When you’re argument is ‘screw free speech’, ‘screw gun rights’, ‘screw smaller government’, and ‘screw freedom of association’- ‘we should only care about free trade and open immigration’, you’re not advocating a ‘classical liberal’ perspective you’re just a ‘progressive’ who has taken a macroeconomics course. That pretty much sums up this publication now, anyways.

    1. The core of libertarianism is protecting liberty.

      The core of cucktarianism is cursing libertarians who would protect statists from gaining electoral majorities in the islands of freedom in the world.

      1. You are our intellectual core because of comments like this one.

            1. Shadilay, my brother!

              #FreeKekistan

          1. The frequency of use for the word “cuck” in SIV’s speed is steadily increasing. Soon it’s gonna be nothing but “cuck, cuck, cuck, cluck, cluck.”

            1. Oh, just cuck off, muthacucker.

              also, fried cucken.

    2. If they’d taken an economics class they would understand that supply and demand applies to labor as well cheap textiles. They would also know that free trade eliminates the need for open borders. Trade the inanimate goods not the animate people who get hurt and require expensive medical care etc.

    3. Not really sure what he’s on about, particularly since classical liberalism was an Eighteenth century development.

  4. Free trade and free migration form the core of the American libertarian identity

    In a private, paid speech to a Brazilian bank on May 16, 2013, Hillary Clinton said:

    My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.

    Reasons Sez – Hillary Clinton forms the core of the American libertarian identity.

    1. Agreed. Hillary would’ve been the greatest libertarian president in history. *sigh*. If only America were not sexist.

      BTW, I stopped after the bold part.

      1. After the bold, it’s still all good. We don’t worry about such trifles in these parts. They aren’t the “core” of libertarianism, after all.

        Open Borders Uber Alles!

    2. Isn’t that (the bold part anyway) the dream of every libertarian? Shouldn’t the true libertarian ideal be that everywhere in the world respects individual freedom and people are allowed to trade and move freely to wherever anyone will have them?

      I can understand arguments that as a practical matter in the world we live in now, national borders are important to protect. But that is a purely pragmatic argument and has nothing directly to do with individual rights (in fact it violates many people’s rights).

      And if you read past the (poorly conceived) sub-headline, you will see what he actually said:

      Free trade and free migration are…the core of the true classical liberal (libertarian) vision

      “Vision”, not “identity”. Vision is also not the same as “core principles”. Reasonable people can disagree about this, but at least honestly engage the arguments that are being presented.

      1. I see no mention of ‘respect for everyone’ or their individual rights.

        This ‘Uber Libertarianism’ is so pathetic. These people care nothing about the individual. They could care less if your speech is curtailed, so long as there’s Uber and other shit you’re ‘free’ in their opinion.

      2. Shouldn’t the true libertarian ideal be that everywhere in the world respects individual freedom and people are allowed to trade and move freely to wherever anyone will have them?

        once the Invisible Hand One-World Government has taken away all those historical inequities and smeared them out into a broad global layer of what a Pakistani brickmaker would consider to be prosperity individual liberty

      3. But that is a purely pragmatic argument and has nothing directly to do with individual rights (in fact it violates many people’s rights).

        Yeah, reality has nothing to do with rights. Rights are out of context absolutes.

        We have to commit suicide pretending everyone is Thomas Paine, because muh principles.

        1. Yes, we all know you are an enemy of principles.

          1. I’m an enemy of trained chimps who treat principles as out of context absolutes.

      4. everywhere in the world respects individual freedom

        I’m perfectly happy to revisit Open Borders Uber Alles when that is the world we live in.

      5. Zeb, you are a good man.

        *respect*

  5. “Free trade and free migration form the core of the American libertarian identity, says Brian Doherty. And there’s nothing wrong with that.”

    Totally false. Many libertarians lime myself totally oppose the concept of open borders as a socialist idea where the public’s property is essentially made public to the world .

    Open borders would legalize trespassing on the the public’s property by anyone in the world

    Nick Gillespie should reconsider his fascist view in the state mandating to the public that their property is no longer really theirs.

    1. Libertarians for Public Property! Socialized and Controlled by the State According to the People’s Will!

      1. Libertarians for Statism! Import a Statist Electoral Majority Now!

        1. Libertarians for a police state to protect our freedomz!

          1. You think you won’t get a police state with a statist electoral majority?

            1. I don’t know, but you’ve basically just conceded you’re ok with it so long as it’s one you agree with.

              1. As much as you’ve conceded you’re ok with a statist electoral majority.

                1. You talk as if we don’t already have that.

      2. Libertarians for Public Property! Socialized and Controlled by the State According to the People’s Will!

        That sounds like a perfect yokel slogan.

    2. Look, obviously you have the right to believe whatever you want, but don’t pretend your argument that open borders is a socialist plot is grounded in traditional libertarian thought. Open borders is definitely a disputed idea among libertarians, but anyone who claims to be a libertarian and believes rights belong solely to the individual should not be shocked that another libertarian might believe in the rights of free association and movement are linked.

      Also, your views on public property being somehow privately owned by us as a collective of citizens are shit. Publicly owned property is in no way analogous to private property. You sound like a leftist who argues that “Governemt is simply a word for things we choose to do together.” Collectivist bullshit, plain and simple.

  6. Uh, I think anonymous Internet commenters know a little bit more about the history of 20th century libertarianism than some guy who wrote a book about it.

    1. Argument from authority! Yay! Trivial logical fallacies.

      1. Yes, in response to arguments from ignorance. No one commenting early this evening listened to the interview, and pretty much every argument brought up here is addressed by Brian.

        It is a logical fallacy. His authority does not mean his arguments are correct. But his arguments do carry more weight and should be given more presumptive merit than those of anonymous Internet folk cursing at him.

    2. And it’s amazing how erudite and well-informed the Pravda staff used to be, too! Why did people ever doubt them?

  7. “Free trade and free migration”?

    I’m still partial to “Free minds and free markets”.

    Any system that lets anyone cross the border legally so long as they can show ID and we can verify that they aren’t convicted felons, known terrorists, etc. necessarily must be predicated on a system that can also expel people who entered illegally and keep out those who were turned away at a border check because they were found to be convicted felons, etc.

    In other words, we should be careful not to make the necessary conditions for free migration impossible.

    1. Yea it is a giant strawman. He isnt against legal immigration for the most part except for a temporary travel ban

      1. I didn’t say it was a straw man.

        More or less, I said the American people aren’t going to buy into letting people come back and forth across the border without a visa unless we can reject those who represent a security risk–and have the means to keep them out. It also means that people need to come across legally and that those who don’t will need to be deported.

        If the American people won’t buy into a visa free system unless we can weed out those at the border who represent a security risk, then that means weeding such people out and keeping them out is a necessary precondition for a visa free system. Undermining the idea of letting people stay here even though they didn’t come across legally, therefore, is undermining the cause of open borders.

        1. That last sentence was a confusing mess.

          Suffice it say, arguing that open borders means that illegal aliens should be free to stay unnecessarily undermines the argument for open borders.

    2. If your problem with immigration is welfare, then you should actually prefer illegal immigration, as Milton Friedman explained.

      1. My problem with immigration isn’t welfare. I’m an open borders guy. In order to have open borders, we need to be able to screen people so we know they aren’t a security threat.

        Everyone who isn’t a security threat should be free to go back and forth across the border at will. Then they’ll use checkpoints instead of sneaking through the desert at night with the bad guys.

        Incidentally, my problem with welfare isn’t immigrants either. I have a bigger beef with anti-immigration people who seem to think that public schooling, Medicaid, rent assistance, and food stamps should somehow be entitlements tied to citizenship. There’s a word for that kind of system–it’s called communism.

        Being a citizen entitles you to vote, hold office, and to be within our borders–and that’s it. I’m not for denying welfare to immigrants. I’m for denying welfare to everybody regardless of citizenship.

      2. Even if Illegals didn’t benefit from government handouts directly (which isn’t true), the citizen workers they displace or have lower pay will go on welfare in compensation.

      3. The problem with Freidman’s theory on that is contradicted by real world experience in CA and many other states.

        And how could it be otherwise. The welfare bureaucracies have an interest in expanding their clientele to expand their own size. That interest pushes them to look the other way wrt the applicants legal status. That interest can only be counteracted by draconian penalties from political bodies that control them. But we’ve repeatedly seen an unwillingness to impose penalties on beauracracies of any stripe and the elected political bodies are themselves overly sympathetic to illegal immigration.

        1. Perhaps the focus should be on reigning in that bureaucracy, then, rather than on people coming here to work. After all, if the welfare bureaucracy is not able to expand with respect to immigrants, it will expand with respect to the natural born citizens, with respect to who is qualified to receive welfare. Either way, the welfare state will grow.

  8. This may make sense if he was getting rid of all trade and allowing no immigration

  9. “Jew who escaped Nazism?provides the strongest possible case against Trump’s “America First” message.”

    Um nick what is with the godwinning. Do you want to be taken seriously?

    How is saying america first now translated into naziism?

    1. Because wanting to limit people,coming to the country is the same as sending those people to extermination camps. Because the entire world, except for the US is one giant death camp. Which is why we need free trade – to take advantage of the slave labor of those death camps.

      Or something.

  10. Since we are to think globally and not america first. Wouldnt that imply the need to intervene in other nations affairs

  11. This may be one of my last comments here before I switch entirely to glibertarians.com. To summarize: free migration into a welfare state is not “libertarian.”

    Even if we weren’t a welfare state, free migration would be problematic. Successful cultures have certain traits (rule of law, limited government, etc.) not present in less-successful cultures (e.g. the Muslim Middle East, or Latin America). While it is laudable for a person to want to flee from the bad to the better, it is essential that they abandon the cultural traits that made their former country a failure, and adopt the traits of the new country that made it a success.

    Increasingly, this does not happen. Too much immigration means that immigrants can settle in communities that become like the old country. People are reluctant to abandon their religion, even if it contributed to the problems of their old country. (Face it: Muslim countries suck in large part because of Islam.) Political forces may encourage “multiculturalism,” slowing assimilation. It’s the old Californication principle writ large: “California taxes are too high, so I’ll move to Oregon or Nevada or Texas, but keep voting for politicians who raise taxes.”

    1. Yea someone brought up a good example of north vs south korea why open borders is probably not a good thing. Like the good socialists they are….they would be like locusts

    2. So long, Papaya! Don’t let the door hit yah where the good Lord split yah!

      1. Yeah, well, fuck you very much.

    3. I’ve been encountering this phenomenon in more and more processes, I’ve started referring to it as the “Mixing Condensed Cream of Mushroom Soup” Problem.

      You have to add the liquid gradually as you stir, or you end up with the chunks floating around that you can’t catch with the spoon and now refuse to dissolve any further.

      1. A good analogy.

  12. In essence, Reason is showing a death wish: an almost maniacal support for endless mass immigration by people likely to be anti-libertarians. Numerous studies show that Muslims, Latin Americans, and immigrants in general vote for more statism. (Escapees from Communism are an exception.) Even worse, Muslims are a huge security risk, tend to have archaic attitudes towards women, gays, and Jews (as Europe’s experience amply demonstrates), and whose religion is almost the perfect antithesis of libertarianism. So more Muslims means not just more statist voters, but more terror risk and more reason for (or excuse for) government surveillance. Plus, immigrants and refugees cost money we don’t have.

    It’s time for libertarianism in one country. We need libertarian nationalism, not a foolish, utopian libertarian globalism that invites in the entire world and ignores the obvious and proven consequences of more statism, more spending, more terror, and more surveillance.

    1. Numerous studies show that Muslims, Latin Americans, and immigrants in general vote for more statism.

      Note also that this is not an accident: this is why Democrats and progressives want to open borders; they don’t care one bit about liberty, what they care about is cementing their hold on power.

      1. Exactly. If millions of white libertarians were coming in, Democrats would be screaming for border control.

  13. I’m amazed by the commenters who think Brian Doherty is some sort of SJW in libertarian clothing who has adopted an open borders worldview to curry favor with the cocktail party set or whatever.

    Here he is advocating the same view 14 years ago; it’s not like he just woke up an open borders guy after Trump got elected:

    https://reason.com/archives/200…..er-tragedy

    1. There were cocktail parties 14 years ago right?

      Also the whole cocktail parties thing is short hand for what’s really happening libertarians who are intimidated by the left adopting 75 of their world view to get along better in a left-wing mellieu.

    2. Dougherty isn’t an SJW. None of the old guard are, really, but he is a goodamn lunatic. Here he is falling for one of the dumbest cover-ups of all time, because it supports the most retarded elements of the anti-war narrative.

      1. Link fail.

        1. Damn it

          https://reason.com/blog/2012/03…..fornia-the

      2. If you are calling being anti-war retarded, you are about as far from libertarian as you can get. I’ll take Doherty over your right-wing foaming at the mouth any day.

        1. “the most retarded elements of the anti-war narrative”

          “If you are calling being anti-war retarded”

          ” your right-wing foaming at the mouth”

          This escalated quickly.

          1. Nah. Just blowing off some steam. This is a safe space.

      3. Link MALFUNCTION.

        1. Damn. REFRESH.

        2. PWND

  14. There might not be anything wrong with it- but it gets you about two percent of the vote.

    1. Well, when your main selling point is outcomes that just plain suck, that’ll happen.

  15. Open borders or a welfare state, pick one.

    Oh wait, we already did.

    Fuck.

    But hey, once someone fixes that mistake then your criticism of Trump’s views on immigration will have some substance.

    Until then?

    LOL.

    1. Yokel logic: correct one violation of rights with another one.

      1. Yokel logic: increasing freedoms for the ruling class moves us closer to a free society.

      2. No, yokel. I’m saying that a preexisting violation of our rights also has the entirely foreseeable consequence of impeding another.

        The solution is obvious. What is also obvious is that you do not want that solution.

      3. Yokel logic: correct one violation of rights with another one.

        In a welfare state open borders is a catch 22. You can either restrict immigration and limit the damage done by the welfare state or you can open the borders and expand the damage done by the welfare state. The “yokel logic” is believing that magnitude of the rights violation by the welfare state is a constant.

        1. I am so tired of this argument. If your argument is that we should fight the expansion of the welfare state by reducing future recipients, why not advocate the sterilization of poor people? Because everyone naturally sees what a horrible violation that would be. But is the same logic. Well, if someone is coming here to pick fruit at an orchard so they can send money back to Mexico to help their aging parents, stopping them from being able to do that is also a horrible violation in my eyes.

          1. If your argument is that we should fight the expansion of the welfare state by reducing future recipients …

            It isn’t but thanks for missing the point.

          2. “I am so tired of this argument.”

            Well of course your are. It is obvious, and we get it. What is also obvious is that you are tired of the argument precisely because you have no good answer for it. Hence the resorting to argument ad absurdum.

  16. “Free trade and free migration are…the core of the true classical liberal (libertarian) vision as it developed in America in the 20th century,”

    Free trade and free migration in a libertarian form of government go hand-in-hand with freedom from regulation, private property, and freedom of association.

    Open borders in a regulatory social welfare state, on the other hand, are not libertarian, they are simply stupid.

  17. Damn, Brian’s spittin’ fire. Fantastic, wide-ranging stuff. I thought you were reaching a bit too much in your article the other day, but this was well said. Keep up the good work.

    1. And since no one who comments will actually listen to it, I’ll repeat Brian’s question: why do you people cling to the name libertarian? If you don’t believe that individuals have the presumption of liberty to move where they please or where they are invited to, or hire who they wish from wherever they wish, or you believe that the borders are owned by “society” and legitimately managed by the state, that’s fine. But why do you insist on calling it libertarian? Does the name have that much cachet with you? Hating taxes is not enough. I’m a big tent guy and hate purity tests and all, but it’s kind of a core philosophical component, inseparable from the NAP, or freedom of association, or natural rights, or whatever you cite to ground your position.

      (note, this is different than saying that more immigration will produce unfavorable effects; arguing the practical politics of it all is important and interesting! I think the concerns have merit and are quite convincing)

      1. (never identified as a libertarian)

        A Reason writer having a FoA purity test is about the funniest shit I’ve ever heard.

        1. Then have fun over at Breitbart.

      2. But why do you insist on calling it libertarian? Does the name have that much cachet with you?

        I don’t, and No. I’ve never insisted on it particularly.

        I’ve long taken a similar view as the magazine itself has done, which is to not aggressively wave that label around as a self-descriptor

        (preferring “Free Minds and Free Markets”; iow, “identifying things i believe in” rather than settling on some mere “ism”)

        In fact if you go back to 2004-20010, you’d find me frequently writing notes here about “why i don’t highlight myself as “libertarian” among my peers“. I’ve always been more interested in the practical application of ideas (policy) than i am armchair philosophizing, or rigidly adhering to some arbitrary doctrine for the sake of club-membership.

        I think its strange for you to pretend that Reason-brand libertarianism is somehow the “Real McCoy” and the people rejecting it do so because they (and not the magazine) are insufficiently doctrinaire.

        I’ve recently pointed out Reason’s own ‘selective idealism‘ – suddenly insisting on an absolutism in matters of labor-migration, but demanding flexibility on matters of, say, free association.

        If you’re going to selectively choose which principles are inviolable, its an odd mixture…. (cont’d)

        1. (cont’d)

          …particularly if the goal is to *expand* libertarian ideas in the wider public, and gain more traction in influencing the direction of policy-making

          Meaning = if Reason-brand libertarianism is truly a ‘big tent’ approach, and open to inviting writers/readers who are strong advocates of some libertarian ideas (and/or not others)…

          …its (to put it mildly) strange that they’d decide that the one idea which they will brook no disagreement about, and which is suddenly announced as the singular sine qua non of their intellectual movement… is “open borders immigration

          An idea which is pretty much a show-stopper for the vast majority of the American public.

          If the goal is to spread libertarian ideas among the unwashed, its pretty much the worst possible hill to choose to die on.

          When i started reading the magazine (early 2000s) i think the issue that held that primary role was “Ending The Drug War” – something which, by contrast, a large number of Americans not only agree with in principle, but which even more opponents acknowledge ‘has some conceptual merits’.

          My point here is that if your goal is to “spread libertarian ideas”…. and you’re going to be intellectually-doctrinaire about anything, it should probably be something that will actually HELP gain you support from people outside your narrow political niche.

          Instead, they seem to have picked things that spit out half their existing readership.

          1. (con’td)

            …my own point of view on immigration, you’ll note, is irrelevant to the above point.

            (i’m pro-immigration/pro-amnesty/pro-refrom, if it matters; but not ‘open borders’ because i don’t think its actually a practical policy concept)

            Even were i more rigidly-orthodox about what is or isn’t ‘libertarian’, i would likely still have a major complaint with the formula Brian latches onto, which insists that things like, “Free Trade and Free Migration” are somehow more-fundamental to classical-liberal/libertarian thinking than the individual’s relationship vis a vis the State they are governed by.

            Basically, “international trade and foreign migration” are both basically foreign policy issues. And, as i’ve pointed out many times before here, Libertarianism isn’t at root a viable foreign policy theory about how states relate to other states;

            Libertarian thinking starts with the individual, and the ideas about why migration should be ‘free’, and why individuals should not have their voluntary trade arrangements interfered with, rely on those core assumptions how the individual-rights are respected.

            Basically, its putting the cart before the horse to argue that ‘free labor-migration’ is an idea which takes precedence before other rights of the individual.

            A state which maximizes migration and trade, but otherwise respects no limits on its authority, is not a libertarian state.

            1. Well said.

            2. i would likely still have a major complaint with the formula Brian latches onto, which insists that things like, “Free Trade and Free Migration” are somehow more-fundamental to classical-liberal/libertarian thinking than the individual’s relationship vis a vis the State they are governed by.

              Have you ever considered that the two might be closely? Free trade and free migration cover a great portion of all of human interactions.

              1. Have you ever considered that the two might be closely_______?

                Maybe you should read everything i wrote again

          2. Good comment, you win the interweb for the day. Reason picking this as the inviolate issue for libertarianism will ensure they have essentially zero influence on any issue for the foreseeable future. Maybe that’s what they want though, they get to bitch incessantly with none of the responsibility wielding actual influence requires.

            1. The reason Reason is focusing in the issue of immigration is not that they consider it the most important issue for libertarians. They focus on this issue because there is a great deal of obfuscation going on from some branches of self-described libertarians with respect to this issue.

              1. Are you now, or have you ever been opposed to open borders?…

              2. The reason Reason is focusing in the issue of immigration is not that they consider it the most important issue for libertarians

                Actually, that’s exactly what Brian said.

                1. Most of us want to have good income but dont know how to do that on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn huge sum, but whenever Buddies try that they get trapped in a scam/fraud so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the page. I am more than sure that you will get best result.
                  !!@@~
                  Best Of Luck for new Initiative
                  ???????????????????????????????????????????????? http://www.jobmax6.com

  18. I looked at the check for $8628 , I didnt believe that…my… father in law was like actualie taking home money in there spare time on there computar. . there sisters roommate haz done this for under 17 months and just cleard the morgage on there apartment and got a gorgeous Chevrolet Corvette . go to websit========= http://www.net.pro70.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.