MAGA Voters Try To Convince a Libertarian To Vote Trump

Reason's Emma Camp attended the Republican National Convention to ask delegates and voters who they think libertarians should vote for this year and why.

Emma Camp | 7.17.2024 5:10 PM

HD Download

Reason attended the Republican National Convention to uncover who the delegates and attendees think libertarians should vote for in the 2024 election.

Former President Donald Trump spoke at the Libertarian National Convention this year to try to garner support from the crucial voting bloc, but since then, it seems that Trump has not done much in the way of winning over libertarian voters. So Reason's Emma Camp tried to see if any of his supporters could convince her. Watch now!

Music Credits: "Funky Monkeys" by Randy Sharp via Artlist; "Big City Lights" by Ikoliks via Artlist

Video Editor: Danielle Thompson
Camera: Justin Zuckerman

NEXT: Great Moments in Unintended Consequences: DoorDash, Google AI, and French Wikipedia (Vol. 16)

Hide Comments (128)

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.

Minadin 8 months ago

Well, clearly not Chase Oliver, so . . .

Log in to Reply
1. Bilbo Saggins 8 months ago
  
  Exactly. I can't vote for the rainbow Gadsen...sorry. Might sit this one out...totally disenfranchised... Got the choice of 3 Zionists or the limp wristed alphabet soup bs
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Minadin 8 months ago
    
    It's definitely not the 'rainbow' thing or the 'Zionism' thing deciding my vote for any of these guys.
    
    We have bigger problems.
    
    Log in to Reply
Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf 8 months ago

Really? Attendees at a Republican convention wanted other people to vote for Republicans?

Those selfish bastards!

Log in to Reply
1. Mother's Lament 8 months ago
  
  Crazy, huh?
  
  Log in to Reply
2. mad.casual 8 months ago
  
  Just wait for the Libertarian flipside piece where Emma tries to convince Republicans to vote for Hillary Clinton.
  
  Log in to Reply
Sarah Palin's Buttplug - Jan 6 = 9/11 (same motive) 8 months ago

They were all full of shit.

“Better economy, blah blah blah, herpty-derp free markety blech”

You were good Emma, but next time follow up – “By what metric was Trump’s economy better?” His GDP and employment numbers were worse. He spent more (you got that part in). Tariffs are taxes – good to hear one of them say that.

I GOT A $1400 DONNIE CHECK! won't be said there.

Log in to Reply
1. Terry Anne Lieber (Don't Feed Tony) 8 months ago
  
  You're full of shit.
  
  Log in to Reply
2. Commenter_XY 8 months ago
  
  SPB2, it is tough knowing the election is over if Brain-damaged Biden stays in, isn't it? Control of Congress is now moving away from your fellow travellers.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Mother's Lament 8 months ago
    
    Trump's split-second bullet dodge ruined Pluggo's whole week.
    
    Log in to Reply
3. Sandra (formerly OBL) 8 months ago
  
  Let's play a game! 🙂
  
  Consider the following quote denouncing even the idea of moving away from Team America World Police: The Trump message on foreign policy: "We will abandon Ukraine. We will auction Taiwan to the highest bidder. (Checks made out to Trump's personal account, please). We despise our NATO allies and want to be rid of them. But you can totally trust us to keep faith with Israel."
  
  Now, who do you think said that? Was it Buttplug? Or one of the bloodthirsty neocon chickenhawks he claimed to hate 20 years ago, but likes now?
  
  Answer will be revealed before 7 PM Eastern time.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Sandra (formerly OBL) 8 months ago
    
    No takers?
    
    I admit that was a tough one.
    
    That very Buttplug-esque quote was in fact produced by David Frum, one of the "Bushpigs" liberals pretended to loathe for their role in the Iraq War - but who are now welcome in the Democratic Party despite not changing their warmongering ways.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Mother's Lament 8 months ago
      
      Awww, I wanted to guess Buttplug, but I just missed it.
      
      A guy who likes to stroke neocons like the Cheney's, Romney, Ryan, McCain and Christie as 'principled, and fondly quotes Frum, Kristol, French and Boot.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. CE 8 months ago
        
        Frum builds much more fantastic strawmen.
        
        Log in to Reply
      2. damikesc 8 months ago
        
        I love how Trump was a "Russian asset" while Boot's wife was nailed for sending info to S Korea.
        
        Log in to Reply
      3. Ersatz 8 months ago
        
        Max wife apparently is a spy
        
        guess i should have read one more comment before i responded...
        drat! aced out by seco.... er 2 days
        
        Log in to Reply
4. Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day) 8 months ago
  
  This has been refuted at least dozens of times. You hit rock bottoms with your lies years ago, and just continue to dig.
  
  Best you just commit suicide. It won’t go well for you when you go to prison for kiddie porn and child rape. Or don’t, I do like the idea of you being tortured in prison by the other inmates.
  
  Log in to Reply
5. DesigNate 8 months ago
  
  The government (whose spending is retardedly included in GDP) is spending 1.5x more than it was in Trumps last year in office. Fuck off with that retarded bullshit.
  
  Log in to Reply
Gaear Grimsrud 8 months ago

Whoa. Shades of Waco.
https://twitter.com/LauraLoomer/status/1813424503663288790?

Log in to Reply
1. Yuno Hoo 8 months ago
  
  "Nothing to see here, folks. Really. Nothing."
  
  Log in to Reply
2. Commenter_XY 8 months ago
  
  That is fucked up. It is a coverup.
  
  Log in to Reply
3. Quicktown Brix 8 months ago
  
  Would there be evidence of a conspiracy in his dried blood and brain matter?
  
  Log in to Reply
4. Mother's Lament 8 months ago
  
  I've come to the inevitable conclusion that anyone who says there's no conspiracy is a conspiracy theorist.
  
  Log in to Reply
5. MasterThief 8 months ago
  
  I talked to the FBI agent who served the warrant at Waco (had an hvac job at his place.) It was kinda cool that he said he served the warrant from a tank. He laughed when I told him we were better off not going into my criticisms of the operation
  
  Log in to Reply
6. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day) 8 months ago
  
  Nothing about the official story makes sense.
  
  https://www.zerohedge.com/political/secret-service-explanations-security-failures-not-adding-dhs-inspector-general-launches
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Gaear Grimsrud 8 months ago
    
    Don't make me go there. Oh godammit.
    https://thefederalist.com/2024/07/16/bidens-team-deliberately-kneecapped-trumps-security-to-allow-an-assassination-attempt/
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. n00bdragon 8 months ago
      
      This kind of stuff is silly. If the secret service really wanted Trump dead the snipers on the rooftop wouldn't need to hire a kid to shoot him, and if they did they would let the kid reload and keep shooting until he hits. All of this is nonsense though because if Biden really wanted Trump killed he could just order Seal Team 6 to hunt him down at Mar A Lago in broad daylight. No need to be crafty about it. Ordering the military around to shoot whoever he wants is a core presidential power and is totally immune from prosecution, so sayeth SCOTUS.
      
      The secret service fucked up because they are (take your pick: incompetent or only human) and they are unsurprisingly trying to CYA because people don't like losing their jobs.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. Mother's Lament 8 months ago
        
        It demonstrates the cowardice and impotence of the loudest trump supporters.
        Are people who think the election was stolen and that the usss tried to have trump assassinated waiting for the system to work.
        
        All you faggots can do is whine and mob on two outnumbered losers on reason.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Jefferson Paul 8 months ago
        
        Real cowardice is hiding behind a sock account.
        
        Log in to Reply
      2. CLM1227 8 months ago
        
        Plausible deniability?
        
        Surround the entire thing with shades of doubt and it doesn’t matter. Who is going to investigate the irregularities, anyway? The government? JFK all over again, where trajectory analysis doesn’t match the official story.
        
        Get a kid the right age for following orders and pumped up enough for stupid, give him a chance to shoot unhindered. The kid would have hit if Trump hadn’t turned his head. Once he shot, there’s no way you can let him shoot again without being way more obvious in letting it happen…
        
        But note, that the sniper who shot had been holding back waiting for authorization and claims to have shot without having obtained it when the kid went hot. So levels of ignorance between organizers and foot soldiers. Allows for two-way blame that creates confusion and perceptions of… incompetence.
        
        If the kid had hit, the threat was done and he could have been neutralized without killing - at least that could plausibly be promised to the kid to convince him he’d be safe.
        
        I don’t think you appreciate enough the lack of trust in our institutions enough.
        
        Log in to Reply
      3. DesigNate 8 months ago
        
        Tell me you don’t understand the immunity ruling without saying you don’t understand the immunity ruling.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Jefferson Paul 8 months ago
        
        He's intentionally "misunderstanding" the immunity ruling, IMO. You see the same with chemjeff and sarc.
        
        Log in to Reply
      4. Azathoth!! 8 months ago
        
        They shot the kid as soon as Trump went down.
        
        They thought, in that moment, they'd succeeded.
        
        Log in to Reply
7. Minadin 8 months ago
  
  I would like to believe that, over 3 days later, they had already gathered all of the evidence they need, and it was therefore time to remit the building back to the owners.
  
  I would like to believe that.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Beezard 8 months ago
    
    This is where I am. It’s more than enough time to gather the necessary data then spray off the gore.
    
    Assuming the FBI were on the up and up…
    
    *cough*
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. VinniUSMC (Banana Republic Day 5/30/24) 8 months ago
      
      Doesn't the FBI use a crime scene clean up service, or do they really clean up crime scenes personally? Honest question, I have no idea.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. Kansasquaker 8 months ago
        
        The government doesn't clean up crime scenes AT ALL. The owner of the property bears that burden. Even if they chase a suspect into your house and destroy it in the process of getting him out, YOU have to pay for the damages. Seeing the FBI hosing off a crime scene is truly astounding.
        
        Here's Joh Stossel on the topic:
        https://x.com/JohnStossel/status/1712713023754821799
        
        Log in to Reply
Dillinger 8 months ago

snarky false premises at the interviewees. new mentor required.

Log in to Reply
SIV 8 months ago

Trump will receive the overwhelming majority of the libertarian vote.
Hell, I'd wager he's making inroads on the libertarian principled non-voter community

Log in to Reply
Terry Anne Lieber (Don't Feed Tony) 8 months ago

True Libertarians Vote Trump

TRUMP2024!

Log in to Reply
JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day) 8 months ago

Who was the libertarian Emma sent?

Log in to Reply
1. JoeJoetheIdiotCircusBoy 8 months ago
  
  okay...that comment made me laugh
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Stuck in California 8 months ago
    
    Same. I came here to make sure someone said it, in fact.
    
    Log in to Reply
2. Chipper Chunked Chile Con Congress (ex NCW) 8 months ago
  
  I was wondering the same thing.
  
  Log in to Reply
defaultdotxbe 8 months ago

My observation from the past 2 elections is that
In 2016 libertarians voted libertarian, regardless of major party preference.
In 2020 libertarians that preferred Biden voted Democrat, and libertarians that preferred Trump voted Libertarian.
In 2024 it's looking like libertarians who prefer Biden are again voting Democrat, but libertarians who prefer Trump are voting Republican.

Log in to Reply
1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day) 8 months ago
  
  My observation is the libertarian candidate has merged closer to the dem favored candidate spending most of their energy on social issues.
  
  Bake the cake. Be anti racist. Favored protected classes now.
  
  This is in fact an intentional shift in the LPe to befriend democrats despite democrats never giving 2 shits about them and prefer centralized control to liberty. At least the GOP has a minority in the party that aligns with libertarian principles. Such as Massie, Rand, etc.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. sarcasmic 8 months ago
    
    No. Not really. Libertarians didn’t leave their GOP friends behind. The GOP used to be somewhat libertarian on economics, but no more.
    What happened was the GOP left their libertarian friends behind when they decided economic liberty wasn’t cool anymore. And since they were never on board with personal liberty, they were left with nothing in common with people they can’t be friends with anymore because politics is more important than friendship.
    
    Or, to put it another way, the GOP became more like the left, since the left was never friendly to economic liberty, and can't tolerate anyone who disagrees with them.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day) 8 months ago
      
      This one is pretty weak. Only one head pat for you.
      
      Make whatever excuses you want for aligning with the left. 2016 broke you.
      
      Pro censorship. Pro covid authoritarianism. Pro taxes increases. Open borders into a welfare state. Pro political lawfare. Pro Ukraine.
      
      But keep convincing yourself. I know you found libertarianism late in life, but you should really start doing more than reading just the quotes from libertarians, maybe try a book or two. Google.com libertarianism hasn’t treated you well.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. sarcasmic 8 months ago
        
        As always you lack the intelligence to talk about a topic and instead resort to "you" arguments. Those are called ad hominems. They are a fallacy used by those who are too stupid to face an actual argument, so they instead try to start a fight. People like you.
        
        If you are able to address what I said then I'll respond.
        
        But I don't think you can. I think you're too stupid.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        VULGAR MADMAN 8 months ago
        
        No one addresses what you say because you constantly lie.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Mother's Lament 8 months ago
        
        And he didn't say anything other than his troll, and even that didn't really say anything.
        
        "People who like Biden like Biden, and Trump like Trump"
        
        Brilliant.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day) 8 months ago
        
        Have you tried making an actual argument with facts backing up your assertions? It seems like just a week ago you tried an appeal to Bastiat regarding laws and morality and in the thread proved you've never actually read his essay with one of the most retarded definitions for morality I've ever seen.
        
        Or I can just start posting your comments saying how you refuse to read any li ks commenters here give you.
        
        Your argument was pure pablum. A series of bald assertions sans evidence. It is worse than opinion because your argument has zero merits.
        
        So make a fact filled backed up argument and I'll respond. Until then I will keep mocking your utter ignorance.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        sarcasmic 8 months ago
        
        Perhaps a comment about liberty, different kinds of liberty, why some is more important than other, what can be sacrificed and why, which political ideologies support different kinds of liberty… no.
        
        You demand “facts” because you lack the mental capacity for imagination and abstract thought. You don’t get jokes, but you do laugh when people get hurt. Even more when you don’t like them. Even more than that when you caused it.
        You can’t talk about concepts. It’s beyond your brain.
        
        Feels like I'm talking to Forrest Gump. Data analyst Gump. At y'your service.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day) 8 months ago
        
        Shorter, you hate facts because they make your head hurt and prefer intellectual laziness lol.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        sarcasmic 8 months ago
        
        Or some evil Rain Man who remembers every comment he’s ever read going back before Biden was president. Remembers them all. Understands zero of them.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day) 8 months ago
        
        I mean you claim to but keep lying about your past statements.
        
        Most of us don't have alcoholics amnesia. I'm sorry not drinking myself to death bothers you so. Lol.
        
        Also continued not even bald assertions but false ones. Youre doj g well buddy. I'll give you 2 jeff head pats.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        DesigNate 8 months ago
        
        No, they’re just run of the mill insults.
        
        Log in to Reply
    2. CE 8 months ago
      
      The modern right is much more amenable to liberty, and at least willing to recognize the authority of the Constitution, which helps to restrain some of the most anti-liberty cravings of the big government types.
      
      Leftists used to defend the First Amendment and the Fourth, but not so much these days.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. chemjeff radical individualist 8 months ago
        
        Well, yes and no. The righties support "the Constitution", yes, but it is more the Constitution that is in their heads, rather than the real one. Ask them if they think birthright citizenship should be legal, or whether illegal immigrants should be counted in the census, or whether individuals should be required to carry ID at all times and present it to the authorities in order to catch illegal immigrants. I bet you will find answers that stand in contrast to the Constitution.
        
        And don't get me started on the righties who think the Constitution was written by Jesus or something.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        DesigNate 8 months ago
        
        Illegal immigrants are not citizens and therefore should not be counted in the census, especially since apportionment is directly tied to it. That’s like asking California to fly in a billion people to tilt the scale in their favor.
        
        I’ve seen two arguments against birthright citizenship. The first is that it should be done away with altogether (which would obviously necessitate a constitutional amendment, and thus be constitutional). The second is that the line has been much too broadly interpreted. To whit, illegal immigrants, still being citizens of their native countries, are not subjects of the United States, therefore their children are not citizens.
        
        Never met a conservative who thought Jesus wrote the constitution. That’s a new one.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        chemjeff radical individualist 8 months ago
        
        Illegal immigrants are not citizens and therefore should not be counted in the census,
        
        Except the Constitution specifically says that the census is to count everyone.
        
        Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
        
        Obviously the parts about "bound to service", "Indians" and "three fifths" are no longer operational, but the "whole Number of free Persons" is.
        
        Log in to Reply
  2. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf 8 months ago
    
    Gary Johnson 2012 was tolerable as a non-libertarian linerarian-lite candidate the first time.
    
    Gary Johnson 2016 was intolerable with Weld.
    
    Jo what's-her-name 2020 was intolerable with her wishy washy BLM equivocating and outright support. To be honest, her first misstep on that was so stupid that I ignored her from then on.
    
    Chase 2024 is a joke too far. I probably voted L for the previous candidates, but I live in California and it doesn't matter who I vote for. I will not vote L this time.
    
    Log in to Reply
  3. chemjeff radical individualist 8 months ago
    
    Who was it who coined the term "lolbertarian"? Was it a left-winger?
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. sarcasmic 8 months ago
      
      Probably one of the trumpanzie clown posse.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day) 8 months ago
        
        Talks about the what, not the who.
        
        Log in to Reply
2. Mother's Lament 8 months ago
  
  Voted trump 2020.
  Not voting 2024.
  
  Log in to Reply
Incunabulum 8 months ago

What was this libertarian's name, Camp?

Log in to Reply
1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day) 8 months ago
  
  *scoobie doo theme. Emma removes mask and wr find out it is Chase Oliver*
  
  She's just mad none of them said they would make FAFSA easier to obtain taxpayer money.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. MasterThief 8 months ago
    
    Be fair. Oliver is better than Emma. Not exactly a high bar to clear
    
    Log in to Reply
Longtobefree 8 months ago

Just wondering Emma, why does the headline say 'MAGA voters', and not 'Republican voters'?

Log in to Reply
1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day) 8 months ago
  
  Because she’s a stupid little Democrat twat/hack?
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Stuck in California 8 months ago
    
    She IS the one who was confronted with a study of young people's political preferences that stated that, since so many young men were leaning conservative, there was a danger of them becoming racist terrorists.
    
    Her response was "Don't worry, they're not REALLY conservative".
    
    How the fuck young miss Camp still has a job at a libealtarian magazine is beyond me.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Chipper Chunked Chile Con Congress (ex NCW) 8 months ago
      
      It's because this is Liberteen Magazine.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. Jefferson Paul 8 months ago
        
        I don't know if you just coined it, but "Liberteen Magazine" is a great way to combine "libertine" and Teen Reason into one. Well done, sir.
        
        Log in to Reply
    2. Longtobefree 8 months ago
      
      I know she writes here at Reason, does she also have a job at a libertarian magazine?
      
      Log in to Reply
    3. Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day) 8 months ago
      
      Still has a job? She’s the future of Reason……..
      
      Went to a far left east coast university.
      Scorchingly leftist.
      Jeffy level delusions of libertarianism.
      Probably works for next to nothing.
      No journalistic ethics or integrity.
      Clearly a lazy writer.
      
      Little Emma is the PERFECT next generation Reason writer, at least per Darth Koch.
      
      Log in to Reply
Rick James 8 months ago

California can deny you a right to own a firearm, even if you don't live in California.

Log in to Reply
1. Rick James 8 months ago
  
  Summary: California's Red Flag Protection Order system creates a flag at the federal level, and there's no system to determine if the person flagged (and that person can be flagged by anyone) is actually a resident, or has even ever visited California. So if you go to buy a firearm, you get denied because there's an "extreme protection order" against you.
  
  It's basically a cross contamination of state and federal databases on a legal level, it's real and it's happening.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Stuck in California 8 months ago
    
    To be fair, that's what happened to us in California.
    
    Step 1 was everyone came from everywhere else, looking to be the "Wacky Californian". Locals never did that shit, but newcomers would all try to be hippy dippy stereotypes, which included always voting D.
    
    Step 2 was D takeover of Sacramento as the only place with economic clout in the early Obama years was Silicon Valley.
    
    Step 3 was progressive takeover of the Democrats, which started governing basically as Progressive LARPers. A raft of policies that treat a wildly diverse state as though everywhere from Calexico to Fort Dick was downtown San Francisco.
    
    Obviously the next steps are to infect everywhere else. They're already trying with everything from auto emissions to how pork is raised. Watch your backs.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Stuck in California 8 months ago
      
      Watch your backs.
      
      Actually, not you Diane. You live in the Seattle area. You're already pretty much fucked.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. Rick James 8 months ago
        
        I got my black rifle right before they were made illegal.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        DesigNate 8 months ago
        
        Does it have the little thingy that goes up?
        
        Log in to Reply
2. mad.casual 8 months ago
  
  California can *try to* deny you a right to own a firearm, even if you don’t live in California.
  
  FIFY
  
  Log in to Reply
car-keynes 8 months ago

All I really see them saying was that they support the next man to approve of the next national debt expenditures so long as he comes from the Republican Party.

What can’t you do with a few trillion dollars? It goes more or less to the political downline, then thank you Uncle Sam for the dictatorship-style money injections. Trillions of dollars paid the direct COVID stimulus payments, for example, as if to get everyone to approve who cashed their check. It seems to be one of the more dangerous paths to head down, although it’s not directly synonymous with being a mountain painted with a tunnel leading to the other side.

Hm, let's implicate the Federal Reserve to be part of the problem, by Republicanism, because trillions of savings could be underway ...

And let's not forget, restricted mob rule looks like a dirty election!!

Log in to Reply
Kungpowderfinger 8 months ago

Ha, I actually watched it. That Reason skit sure the fuck backfired.

It’s like a James Klug bit without the humor and the interviewees outsmarting the interviewer. And that was with editing no doubt, LOL.

Log in to Reply
1. MasterThief 8 months ago
  
  Holy shit, that was bad for her! Everyone she talked to was more reasonable, better informed, and more intelligent. The blonde was closest to her depth, and even she was able to go a bit beyond Emma's bumper sticker talking points.
  How do they think this is a good look?!
  
  Log in to Reply
2. mad.casual 8 months ago
  
  Ha, I actually watched it. That Reason skit sure the fuck backfired.
  
  Great Moments In Unintended Consequences (Vol. 17)
  
  I think there's enough ammo just within the last week to do at least one full episode.
  
  Log in to Reply
chemjeff radical individualist 8 months ago

So what is it exactly that makes Chase Oliver unacceptable?

He's gay? No no no, I am told that cannot be it. Okay, fine.

He voted for Obama and came to libertarianism from the anti-war left? I mean, if you go allllll the way back to 2008 and ask yourself which candidate was the most anti-war, the answer would have to be Obama. FFS even the Libertarian Party nominated Bill Barr who voted for the Iraq War. So in hindsight, if one is a single-issue anti-war voter (which many people are, even here), in 2008, Obama was the only sensible choice.

He supports civil rights laws for LGBTQ people? Okay fine, that is an unlibertarian position to take. No candidate is perfect however. If you are going to condemn him for this, then that's fair - but let me tell you about all the ways that Trump fails the libertarian purity test...

Is it because his identity and cultural affinity seems associated more with urban lefties? That is, does it seem like he looks more comfortable flying a rainbow flag and drinking overpriced martinis, than in driving a pickup truck and drinking cheap beer? Hmm, I think we may be on to something here...

Log in to Reply
1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf 8 months ago
  
  He's not an individualist? He believes the State is competent, wise, and worthy?
  
  I dunno, Jeffy. Why don't you tell us?
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Mother's Lament 8 months ago
    
    No. Because that will wreck his little game.
    
    Log in to Reply
  2. chemjeff radical individualist 8 months ago
    
    I'm asking you. I'm entirely comfortable voting for Chase Oliver.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. damikesc 8 months ago
      
      Support for mandates is a massive, huge, flashing red flag for me.
      
      Not for you. We all know that.
      
      But for anybody remotely fond of liberty, it is.
      
      Also, that he comes across as being utterly full of shit.
      
      Log in to Reply
    2. Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day) 8 months ago
      
      Of course you are. It supports the ridiculous notion that you’re in any real way a libertarian and you still get to directly support the grooming/mutilation/murder of children. Plus open borders at all cost.
      
      He’s a great PedoGroomer Jeffy candidate.
      
      Log in to Reply
2. Minadin 8 months ago
  
  Genital mutilation of kids is a deal breaker for me.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. chemjeff radical individualist 8 months ago
    
    Okay. So if you think that gender reassignment treatment should be completely banned for ALL children, EVEN THOSE who really are suffering and might actually benefit from this treatment, then from a libertarian perspective, where do you draw the line between which medical procedures should be banned and which ones should not?
    
    If you say "when it's child abuse", then that just begs the question of how you define child abuse.
    
    I submit that if there is a medical procedure, that is well established by some level of medical rigor, to treat a diagnosable disease, and the patient has been clearly established to be suffering from that disease (by multiple doctors if you wish), and all parties, including parents, are fully informed of the benefits and risks, and all consent, then I have a hard time here demanding that the state override the parents' decision to proceed if that is in fact their decision.
    
    Now you can say "but doctors aren't always right", or "the doctors could be pursuing some radical agenda", or "the diagnosis might be wrong", or "the disease isn't real and the doctors again might be pursuing a radical agenda", yes, those all might be true - but then you run into the question of how the state should decide when the doctors are right or wrong, or when the diagnosis is correct or incorrect. How intrusive should the state be when it comes to the practice of medicine in general?
    
    And really, the whole tenor of the attempt to ban gender reassignment treatment stands against the general libertarian impulse to deregulate medicine and to remove licensure laws. I for one believe that doctors should be required to have a license demonstrating a certain level of competency, but then again everyone else around here calls me a 'leftie'. What is your position from a libertarian perspective on licensure for doctors?
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Rick James 8 months ago
      
      There no condition where sterilizing or removing healthy parts from a physically healthy child is ok. Never. Ever, under no circumstances whatsoever. If the child is wracked with the psychological delusion that he’s St. Gerome, then you treat his delusion that he’s St. Gerome, you don’t carve his body up until he kind of looks like a bad facsimile of St. Gerome.
      
      This debate is over, 140,000 times over, that's all I'm going to say on the matter.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. chemjeff radical individualist 8 months ago
        
        If the child is wracked with the psychological delusion that he’s St. Gerome, then you treat his delusion that he’s St. Gerome
        
        Sometimes, it doesn't work.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        damikesc 8 months ago
        
        You STILL do not HUMOR the delusion.
        
        As I've asked many times, do you help an anorexic not eat? Call them "fatty" when they say they look fat?
        
        What, EXACTLY, is the difference?
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day) 8 months ago
        
        You are a sick, disgusting, malignant piece of shit.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        chemjeff radical individualist 8 months ago
        
        IT'S THE TRUTH. Leelah is proof of that. Counseling and therapy do not always work to correct the 'delusion'.
        
        Log in to Reply
    2. Minadin 8 months ago
      
      I agree with Dianne / Paul / Rick James, and will add that, if you think that mutilating kids is part of your political ethos, you need to re-evaluate your stance, and possibly your value as a human. Kids cannot make life-changing decisions on their own. Especially not without the counsel of SANE adults who have their long-term best interests in mind.
      
      To think that random strangers should be allowed to convince kids to mutilate their otherwise healthy bodies is otherwise known as 'grooming'. If you believe this should be allowed, then you're as guilty as the people who do it.
      
      THIS IS IRREPREABLE HARM PERPETRATED ON IMPRESSIONABLE CHILDREN. HAVE A SOUL.
      
      Christ.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. chemjeff radical individualist 8 months ago
        
        I feel like you didn't read anything that I wrote.
        
        Please just read this article.
        
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leelah_Alcorn
        
        There are teenagers out there, who are absolutely certain that they are trans, their parents send them to therapy with the hopes that they will be counseled out of it, but the therapy doesn't work.
        
        Please consider what you would do if you were confronted with a situation like that of Leelah's.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        n00bdragon 8 months ago
        
        A child being "absolutely certain" of something doesn't make it so. More generally, that applies to everyone as a whole, but most especially to children. Wanting to be something does not make you that thing. Really really really really wanting to be that thing does not make you that thing. That child died because they killed themselves, not because they were transgender, not because they were denied cosmetic surgery, but because they made a deliberate choice. It's a sad choice. It's a selfish and short sighted choice.
        
        It's not a medical problem.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        chemjeff radical individualist 8 months ago
        
        Please listen. This family did what folks around here ask families to do when their child says he/she are trans. The parents refused to indulge the 'fantasy', took her to counseling, and eventually put her on antidepressants because she was so depressed. It didn't work.
        
        I am saying that there are a small number of teenagers out there like Leelah, and that outright bans on gender medicine for ALL teens will very much harm people like Leelah, as this story shows.
        
        I agree that there have been medical professionals who have been too quick to recommend pharmaceutical/surgical treatments based on an insufficiently thorough examination of the teenager's mental state. That should be stopped, and my suggestion is to mandate a rigorous standard of care.
        
        I agree that there have been people who are too quick to believe the teenager claiming to be trans and to call everyone else bigots if they don't automatically accept it. That's wrong, teenagers are not always correct in their own self-diagnosis and trusting teenagers to be that self-aware that their word alone should be enough to justify pharmaceutical/surgical treatments, is wrong. Families should be presented with all the options, all the risks and benefits, and *ALL* parties involved should be required to give full affirmative consent before any pharmaceutical/surgical treatment is even considered.
        
        So I agree that the standard for teenager transgender medicine has been too loose in the past, and it should be tightened up. But banning it altogether has its own costs, as evidenced by Leelah above.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        chemjeff radical individualist 8 months ago
        
        That child died because they killed themselves, not because they were transgender, not because they were denied cosmetic surgery, but because they made a deliberate choice.
        
        Please read her suicide note.
        
        https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2895534/Heartbreaking-suicide-note-17-year-old-transgender-girl-DELETED-Tumblr-page-candlelit-vigils-held-honor.html
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day) 8 months ago
        
        The kid needed psychological health, not chemical/surgical mutilation. There is no justification for your bullshit arguments.
        
        People like you need to go, and certainly must never be anywhere near a child. Let alone determine any policy related to children.
        
        If you ever went anywhere near a child of mine, it would be the last thing you ever did. I’m certain that nearly everyone else here feels the exact same way. So just slither back under your gigantic boulder if you know what’s good for you.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        chemjeff radical individualist 8 months ago
        
        The kid needed psychological health
        
        She received counseling. It didn't stick. Then what?
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        damikesc 8 months ago
        
        "I have decided I've had enough. I'm never going to transition successfully, even when I move out. I'm never going to be happy with the way I look or sound. I'm never going to have enough friends to satisfy me. I'm never going to have enough love to satisfy me. I'm never going to find a man who loves me. I'm never going to be happy. Either I live the rest of my life as a lonely man who wishes he were a woman or I live my life as a lonelier woman who hates herself. There's no winning. There's no way out. I'm sad enough already, I don't need my life to get any worse. People say "it gets better" but that isn't true in my case. It gets worse. Each day I get worse. That's the gist of it, that's why I feel like killing myself. Sorry if that's not a good enough reason for you, it's good enough for me"
        
        This was his suicide note.
        
        Feel free to explain what, outside of "changing all of human society", would have prevented a suicide there.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Mother's Lament 8 months ago
        
        You mean convinced he was a woman?
        
        I remember when it was acceptable for a woman to look like a man and it was intolerant to expect her to conform to gender norms.
        
        The blob did too well indoctrinating me to that belief over just going along with whatever the current thing was.
        
        If this boy wants to prance around like a woman that's fine by me. Doesn't make him a woman though. Cut his hog off, don't care. Do it on his dime though.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Think It Through 8 months ago
        
        Tell them to live with it.
        
        There have been aspects of my physicality I have hated since age 10. BUT THAT'S ME. I have made it into my 50s as is.
        
        Live with it.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        chemjeff radical individualist 8 months ago
        
        Live with it.
        
        Leelah literally could not. Again, her parents did everything that you demand. They refused to recognize her 'delusion'. They sent her to counseling. They put her on antidepressants when her condition got so bad.
        
        Total bans will produce Leelahs.
        
        Log in to Reply
      2. Gaear Grimsrud 8 months ago
        
        "To think that random strangers should be allowed to convince kids to mutilate their otherwise healthy bodies is otherwise known as ‘grooming’. If you believe this should be allowed, then you’re as guilty as the people who do it."
        You would think that this would be universally accepted and, from what I used to think was a libertarian position, these people are perpetrating acts of aggression in violation of the NAP. If libertarianism has evolved to a place where this is acceptable and promoted I'm no longer a libertarian. When the Libertarian Party nominates a candidate who says, well maybe not surgery but chemical castration is OK, they are dead to me.
        
        Log in to Reply
    3. n00bdragon 8 months ago
      
      Cutting off children's genitals is not a medical procedure. It does not treat a diagnosable disease. Gender dysphoria is a psychological problem. Curiously, for no reason whatsoever, it is the only psychological problem that anyone seems to think should be treated by doing things to the physical body.
      
      All that said, Oliver is still the best candidate that will appear on ballots this fall by a country mile. He's not good, mind you. It's just that politically inexperienced wackos who are okay with child abuse is somehow the best option.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. Gaear Grimsrud 8 months ago
        
        Chase Oliver is completely irrelevant. The party will get the lowest vote total in history.
        
        Log in to Reply
    4. damikesc 8 months ago
      
      "Okay. So if you think that gender reassignment treatment should be completely banned for ALL children, EVEN THOSE who really are suffering and might actually benefit from this treatment"
      
      Such children do not exist.
      
      Log in to Reply
CE 8 months ago

And they were unable to sell an America-First, Secure-the-Border Republican candidate to an Immigration-Uber-Alles Reason journalist? I'm shocked.

Log in to Reply
1. mad.casual 8 months ago
  
  "Immigration-Uber-Alles"... or maybe "Immigration"-*Uber-Alles* or "Immigration"-Uber-Der-Ganzen-Weld.
  
  The immigration isn't important. As repeatedly gets pointed out, if it were, they'd be hosting people or at least involved in and making bank off immigration infrastructure. They don't even call it an immigration movement.
  
  They/she actually don't want bouts of American or other-style Western, Liberal Nationalist Populist uprising(s) escaping their respective borders. It is, and has been since the start, a rather overt Open Borders movement in the Marx/Stalin/Hitler/Mao/Imperialist sense. Not "More individual liberty for everyone." Open Borders, "No obstacles to my preferred social agenda anywhere I may look." Open Borders.
  
  Log in to Reply
Gaear Grimsrud 8 months ago

I actually finally watched this and some of these people actually made a pretty good case. When Emma goes off on tariffs being a tax the guy replies sure they are but the question is, is it better or worse than some other tax. This is a problem I've always had with the Reason obsession with tariffs. The federal government is going to tax you one way or another. Is a consumption tax paid by tariffs more onerous than a confiscatory income tax? Is the overall effect on the economy worth the tradeoff? I don't know the answers to these questions but I think they're worth asking.

Log in to Reply
1. Longtobefree 8 months ago
  
  All the shucking and jiving about tariffs ignores that the reason for tariffs is to stop people from buying the foreign goods, not simply to raise revenue. All of the opponents simply assume that everyone keeps buying the imports, and no one at all buys the alternatives at a lower price.
  Sort of like democrats always assume taxing something will bring in revenue based on the current consumption rate, instead of people buy something else, or going all black market.
  (and black market is not a racist term)
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. VinniUSMC (Banana Republic Day 5/30/24) 8 months ago
    
    All of the opponents simply assume that everyone keeps buying the imports, and no one at all buys the alternatives at a lower price.
    
    That’s because they also assume that the only outcome is that those damn greedy US businesses’ domestic prices will increase so much that people will still just buy the more expensive imports fully passing the tariff from the exporter to the importer. In reality, some domestic increases might be seen, but domestic purchasing will increase, and imports will decrease. Of course exporters will try to pass the tariff through, just like every business does with every tax ever. Duh?
    
    Log in to Reply
mad.casual 8 months ago

Where was the interview with the guy with a boot on his head? The interview with the naked dancing guy? The interview with the nominee who had one too many edibles?

I thought this was the new, post-Reagan, incoherent GOP. All these people look, act, and talk like they are aware of and even understand social policy. Even the policies they don’t hold or may not agree with.

Log in to Reply
Uncle Jay 8 months ago

"MAGA Voters Try To Convince a Libertarian To Vote Trump."

As opposed to democrat voters trying to convince a Libertarian to vote for Biden?
I'd love to see that at the DNC.

Log in to Reply
1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day) 8 months ago
  
  It won’t happen. Instead Little Emma will write articles about how Dreamy Pollis and Newsome are, or maybe ‘The Reason Case for Woke Democrat Gofernance’.
  
  Log in to Reply
C-Lión 8 months ago

Trump is the most libertarian president we've had in my lifetime. So maybe libertarians should just sit this out and let Biden win. Reason mag has lost its bearings and has severe TDS.

Log in to Reply
1. AT 8 months ago
  
  You realize that Emma isn't libertarian, right?
  
  She's just retarded.
  
  Log in to Reply
Mr. JD 8 months ago

The fact that so many pRiNcIpLeD lIbErTaRiAnS don't vote Republican is a big part of why libertarianism is such an insignificant, minority movement.

They let the perfect be the enemy of the far-less-awful.

Log in to Reply
1. It's only a paper moon, Nominalists 4 months ago
  
  Yes, not one positive thing, all fueled by hate and “I am better than you” I voted for a Democratic Governor (turned out to be shit) but I did because the Republican was worse. Do Libertarians know who first said “You can’t serve two masters” ?
  
  Log in to Reply
It's only a paper moon, Nominalists 4 months ago

You aren't Libertarian. MIlei and Villaruel --that's Libertarianism

You say , she can't be a LIbertarian , I won't allow it. SHE MUST support abortion.
Argentina’s new vice president Victoria Villarruel is a Catholic who opposes abortion and anti-family ideologies.

Log in to Reply

Please log in to post comments

MAGA Voters Try To Convince a Libertarian To Vote Trump

Reason's Emma Camp attended the Republican National Convention to ask delegates and voters who they think libertarians should vote for this year and why.

Latest

Yanking the Funds

15 Years of Super PACs

Alaska Poised To Beg for Relief From Crippling Federal Shipping Restrictions

Brickbat: Lawn Sign Litigation

Texas A&M's Drag Ban Shows the Threat to Campus Free Speech Is Bipartisan

Login Form