Dave Rubin's Case for DeSantis
Join Reason on YouTube and Facebook at 1:25 p.m. Eastern for a discussion with Dave Rubin about Gov. Ron DeSantis' entry into the 2024 presidential race.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis said last week that he wants to lead a "great American comeback" while announcing his run for president of the United States of America on the Republican ticket. He called for tougher border controls, a crackdown on crime, and a war on "wokeness."
DeSantis might have strong appeal to conservative voters, but how should libertarians evaluate the two-term governor who made a name for himself first by flouting the federal government's COVID policy recommendations and later by picking fights with Disney World and declaring Florida the state where "woke goes to die"? Would a DeSantis presidency be any better for liberty than a Joe Biden or Donald Trump one?
"Everything is working here [in Florida]," said Dave Rubin, host of The Rubin Report, in an interview on Fox Business last week explaining his support for DeSantis.
Rubin, a self-described classical liberal who moved his business and home from Los Angeles to Miami in 2021, will join Reason's Nick Gillespie and Zach Weissmueller this Thursday at 1:25 p.m. Eastern to discuss the DeSantis candidacy, what the bitter Trump-DeSantis rivalry says about the state of the GOP, and the policies DeSantis has implemented in Florida to better understand what his agenda for the country might be and weigh the implications for liberty in America.
Watch and leave questions and comments on the YouTube video above or on Reason's Facebook page.
Show notes:
- U.S. Census Bureau: Florida Fastest-Growing State for First Time Since 1957
- Age-adjusted COVID mortality by state as of May 2023
- Reason's C.J. Ciaramella on the FIRST STEP Act
- Reason's Jacob Sullum: Ron DeSantis Dangerously Blurs the Distinction Between State and Private Action
- Tampa Bay Times: Crime is Down, But the Full Picture is Muddled
- FBI Uniform Crime Report by state
- Producer: Bess Byers
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
'Preciate the scare quotes around 'centrist'.
Absurd Media Struggles to Discern Who Is Worst: Trump, DeSantis, Putin, or Literal Hitler.
I’m currently generating over $35,100 a month thanks to one small internet job, therefore I really like your work! I am aware that with a beginning capital of $28,800, you are cdx02 presently making a sizeable quantity of money online.
.
.
Just open the link———————->> http://Www.pay.hiring9.Com
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
Here is I started.……......>> http://WWW.RICHEPAY.COM
Heh, I saw that same video and was thinking about linking to it either in this comment thread or in the Mourning Lynx.
I am making a good salary from home $1500-$2500/week , which is amazing, undera year earlier I was jobless in a horrible economy. I offer thanks toward Godeach day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay itforward and share it with Everyone, Here is website where i startedthis……………..
.
.
EARN THIS LINK—————————————➤ https://Www.Coins71.Com
If Jeb became the nominee, he’d be Hitler too. Or at least Mussolini.
Huh, interesting. It's not a good look that a third party has to be brought in to make what should be an easy libertarian case. But it's a good sign that the editors actually bothered to do so.
Perhaps they're self aware enough to recognize that they're not going to be able to do it themselves? Either that or they want to make sure they keep getting invited to the cool DC cocktail parties. Rubin's already persona non grata at those things.
>>but how should libertarians evaluate the two-term governor
Better. Than. Brandon.
I demand more articles about desantis. Why is reason silent on this issue?
Regardless of what one thinks of Reason's DeSantis coverage, they really are susceptible to the journalist mob stampede.
“how should libertarians evaluate the two-term governor who made a name for himself first by flouting the federal government’s COVID policy recommendations and later by picking fights with Disney World and declaring Florida the state where “woke goes to die”? Would a DeSantis presidency be any better for liberty than a Joe Biden or Donald Trump one?”
I feel like I’m being subjected to some crazy Stanford Prison-like experiment. All of those things are infinitely more Libertarian than what we’ve had. Cowtowing to Federal Nanny COVID policy is Libertarian? Corporate Welfare is Libertarian? Institutionalized Racism and Identity Politics is Libertarian? What in the Actual Fuck, Reason?!?
If you can find a private corporation anywhere in the chain of events, then the entire process is libertarian, and any interference with said process is unlibertarian.
You forgot the most important clause to that argument. As long as the results are left leaning. That's why the private company defense has been disappearing when it comes to Twitter now that Musk runs it.
I don't think those were all intended to be assumed negatives. Covid stuff is DeSantis's biggest positive in my book. The woke fighting is mostly good. Picking fights with Disney I'm not sure what I think. Seems like the state should decide if they are going to do special deals for companies like they do with Disney or not and stick with that regardless of the company.
Reason came out pretty strongly against his Covid response. Federal government threatening companies into comply with their will is private action in Reason's books.
In general? I remember something about bans on vaccine mandates. They were pretty awful about the covid stuff though, I agree.
In general?
Yes in general. See ‘Bathroom Panic’. Raleigh passed an ordinance mandating private businesses make whichever bathroom available to trans people’s wishes. The State passed a law mandating the conservation of cis-gendered bathrooms in federal and municipal buildings (in line with top-down federalism in NC) and returning private bathrooms to the business owners. Reason opposed it.
See also ‘private universities’. Reason routinely flip flops when a *private* University “violates a professor’s free speech rights” and then balks when a university imposes DEI and behavioral requirements above and beyond any educational requirements, student handbooks, or event hosting policies even if the specific implementation overtly capitalizes on Title IX policies.
See also also '1A of the internet'. Reason flat out opposed the CDA without exception of S230 in '96/'97. When it was *alleged*, with receipts, that Twitter, Google, YT, FB, Patron, GoFundMe, etc. were colluding and perpetrating shadow bans, we got "1A of the internet", "build your own Twitter", and "they didn't shadow ban anyone, they just deprioritized peoples' and posts and locked them out of their accounts without telling anyone and according to unwritten terms of service".
This is rather quintessential to the “BOAF SIDEZ” argument that you’re, wittingly or not, attempting to perpetrate. Reason (and you) favors public-private contracts when they align with the preferred zeitgeist and oppose both the dissolution of such contracts *and* the formation of others when they oppose the zeitgeist in a an obfuscated (if not overt) “Heads I win, tails you lose.” shtick. A shtick that in other historical contexts would be recognized as soft fascism.
Corporations have an absolute right to ban or shadow-ban whoever they want from their private property - unless they do it for civil-rights-act protected-class reasons (race, religion, sex, etc).
S230 was written to *enable* this activity, not to extend 1A protections beyond government entities.
Didn't DeSantis do the same thing? He didn't allow businesses to decide whether to have mask mandates, he forced businesses not to have mask mandates. Is that just the flip side of the same coin?
fewer victims.
I AM Making a Good Salary from Home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing, under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it's my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone. go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart ......
SITE. ——>>> bitecoindollar12.com
In a perfect world, yeah, that's also bad. In this world where businesses are already highly regulated regarding what they can and can't require of employees, I'm going to be a lot less concerned about a policy that prevents businesses from imposing stupid shit on their employees than one that encourages or forces employers to impose stupid shit on their employees.
So much this ^
Not sure about this. What you're saying is you're right and the other side is stupid shit so it's ok. What if next time he calls for something you think is stupid shit? The point is that he shouldn't be wielding this sort of power. Or anyone else.
"What you’re saying is you’re right and the other side is stupid shit so it’s ok."
That's not what he said at all.
He clearly said it's better to have policy that forbids impositions, than policy that forces impositions.
I honestly don't understand how you could possibly have come to the conclusion you did.
Seems like the state should decide if they are going to do special deals for companies like they do with Disney or not and stick with that regardless of the company.
What if the company subsequently refuses to hire the Goldilocks number of minorities, let trannies use the restroom of their choice, or refuses to censor the Hunter Biden story.
Kinda intrinsically to libertarian individualism, the good faith assumed of contracts among private individuals doesn't in any way applies to government-corporate contracts, both ways.
Seems like, in a representative democracy, if the people elected a representative to terminate a contract, they terminate the contract, and the representative gets re-elected. The Corporation lost and rather literal fascists start whining about how the rules of representative democracy aren't fair.
The issue is *retaliation* for exercise of constitutional rights.
There is nothing wrong with having a debate over corporate welfare *under normal circumstances*.
However, when you decide to rescind corporate welfare to one specific corporation BECAUSE that corporation criticized a law you signed/passed…
That is a violation of the 1st Amendment, and inexcusable.
And the whole point of the Bill of Rights is that it's stuff 'democracy' does not get to touch.
The Corporation has had it's rights violated, and FL govt deserves to get it's ass handed over in court because of this.
Disney already enjoyed additional benefits other private entities in the state did not enjoy, those are being removed which is the right thing to do. Disney should be treated like everyone else.
Disney is not being treated like everyone else. Is DeFascist retaliating against any other company? No.
The state *retaliating* against Disney for Disney’s political speech is inexcusable.
Even if the retaliation takes the form of an otherwise-acceptable political action (such as revoking corporate welfare).
Going off with the bullshit 'people's elected representatives' nonsense doesn't help any - the POINT of having a Constitution is that there are some things you DO NOT get to vote on.
And citizens/corporations being allowed to criticize the government freely without retaliation is one of those.
Dave Rubin, centrist?
Dave Rubin, libertarian?
The BlazeTV Dave Rubin?
The 'Kayleigh McEnany is competent, professional, and classy' Dave Rubin?
Wingnut Dave Rubin?
Or is this another Dave Rubin?
So many questions, so few answers.
No, we're talking about the moderately leftist Dave Rubin.
Now call him a homophobe, Kirkland.
Rubin used to be progressive and work on the Young Turks, which is why Kirkles hates him so. Heresy is a mortal sin.
I'm not so sure it's heresy. More apostasy.
Young Turks Dave Rubin.
good
Anyone else remember Reasons constant refrain of moderate Joe Biden?
Boehm: Vice President Joe Biden, former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, and other moderate candidates.
https://reason.com/2020/02/21/bloomberg-goes-for-brokered-convention/
Shackford: Joe Biden’s strong showing in South Carolina’s primary has put an end to Pete Buttigieg’s attempt to offer himself up as a more moderate alternative
https://reason.com/2020/03/01/pete-buttigieg-drops-out-of-presidential-race-following-poor-south-carolina-showing/
Sullum: Vice President Joe Biden as the moderate alternative to an avowed democratic socialist, Sen.
https://reason.com/2020/03/04/bloomberg-drops-out-demonstrating-the-limits-of-money-and-the-perils-of-arrogance/
I don't give credence to the opinions of Dave "I traffic babies to satisfy my creepy gay parenting fetish: Rubin.
The benefit to Americans is that if he beats Trump & loses to Biden…
The GOP can go back to being a sane, pro-freedom party again (presuming Donald chokes on a cheeseburger in the next 4 yrs, and doesn’t try to run for POTUS at age 90)….
As opposed to being held hostage by nut-ball culture-warriors who see ‘child trafficking’ and ‘grooming’ around every corner…. And who want to use the power of government to 'fight' the left, even if it means completely shredding the 1st Amendment.