Poison Watch
See other Poison Watch Articles
Title: Hey, Tooconservative And Other Libertarians, Maybe Republicans Just Aren’t That Into Your Libertarianism [Appropriately Modified Title]
Source:
Reason
URL Source: https://reason.com/blog/2018/06/13/ ... tarians-maybe-republicans-just
Published: Jun 13, 2018
Author: Matt Welch
Post Date: 2018-06-28 22:50:40 by Gatlin
Keywords: None
Views: 8469
Comments: 29
June 12 was not a good day for free-market constitutionalism in the modern GOP. Libertarian-leaning Republican congressman Mark Sanford got primaried in South Carolina last night by immigration hawk and late-breaking Donald Trump endorsee Katie Harrington, whose main line of attack on Sanford was that he was disloyal to Trump. But that was just one event in a day unusually swollen with reminders that the modern GOP at the national level is not welcoming to libertarian ideas. Take two issues that we've been banging on about at Reason for years: tariffs, and Congress's paralytic fear of doing even its minimal constitutional duty. In a remarkable speech yesterday, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who is retiring at the end of his term this year, combined the two issues in a damning indictment of his colleagues' cowardice. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Corker charged, blocks all amendments—including one Corker introduced last week requiring congressional approval for "national security" tariffs—because "Well gosh, we might poke the bear" (meaning the president). Watch: Not to be overly tautological, but it's difficult for even the most libertarian-leaning legislators to get meaningful stuff done if they are prevented from legislating. Then there was the defeat last night of liberty-movement Republican Nick Freitas in the Virginia GOP primary for U.S. Senate at the hands of Confederate monument enthusiast and recent Paul Nehlen fan Corey Stewart, who is fond of saying stuff like "I was Trump before Trump was Trump" and tweeting jibber-jabber like this: Corey Stewart's 72 GOTV plan. Use @BillKristol and @reason as boogeymen? pic.twitter.com/e12NfKfPjY — Jim Swift (@JSwiftTWS) June 12, 2018 All of the above was enough for Daniel McCarthy to write the latest version of "How Donald Trump eclipsed the 'libertarian moment.'" McCarthy's grim conclusion: "The revolution begun by Trump in 2016 is continuing at the state and congressional levels. And the Ron Paul revolution begun by Senator Paul's father now seems marginal, if not utterly defeated—a remarkable reversal of fortune from just four years ago." Politicians respond to incentives, and right now the imperative Republican incentive is to kiss Donald Trump's ring. Less than 15 months ago, Trump was warning that "The Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they don't get on the team, & fast. We must fight them, & Dems, in 2018!" Last night, as one Freedom Caucus incumbent lost to a Trump-backed challenger and a Rand Paul–backed Senate candidate lost to a #MAGA nationalist, Freedom Caucus stalwarts Reps. Mark Meadows (R–N.C.) and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) went on Laura Ingraham's Fox News program not to sulk but to talk about possibly impeaching Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein for his role in overseeing the Mueller investigation. They have gotten on the team. Libertarian policy goals will still sometimes be met under Trump, some of them intentionally, some not. He will continue deregulating and appointing some good judges, may yet contribute to genuine peace on the Korean peninsula, and has proven surprisingly malleable on marijuana enforcement and prison reform. But as an organizing body, particularly anywhere near the levers of federal power, the GOP is an increasingly unreliable ally to libertarians. Your daily reminder that Republicans hate libertarians, no matter what party they're in. https://t.co/Cq1qY93mjg — Nicholas Sarwark (@nsarwark) June 13, 2018 Daniel McCarthy, in his essay, provides some interesting food for thought about the unsatisfying-to-many penchant among libertarians for calling balls and strikes in a more emotional age of with-us-or-against-us polarization: The other great issue at the libertarians' disposal, smaller government, simply never mattered in the ways they thought it did. Anti-government sentiment was most powerful with Republican voters as an expression of anti-elitism and resistance to a government run by a liberal Democrat like Barack Obama. Emphasizing cutting government on principle, as libertarians did, would never be as effective as emphasizing fighting the liberals, with or without shrinking the state. Trump was not the most anti-government candidate, but he was the most anti-left. The libertarian position, by contrast with Trump, seemed like just a more thoroughgoing version of what every other supposedly conservative Republican believed about cutting government.... Urgency matters in politics, and Trump is a master of creating a sense of urgency in both his supporters and his opponents—as Michael Anton's "Flight 93" essay and the left's continual cries of "authoritarianism!" have shown. Ron Paul did create a sense of urgency in his campaigns, largely by capitalizing on powerful issues that had been ignored by the establishment in both parties, such as disastrous wars with bipartisan support and the mysteries of the Federal Reserve. The elder Paul said a further financial meltdown was imminent. But Trump outflanked the libertarian line in this respect as well. And today the most urgent question in American politics, the one that quickens pulses the most, is simply whether you are for or against Trump. Mark Sanford has said he's not really anti-Trump, but that he simply applies to Trump the standards that derive from his libertarian-ish principles. If those standards lead to a good grade for Trump, Sanford is happy to apply it. If not, then not. But his kind of abstraction and fixity, whatever its merits in other respects, cannot convey a sense of urgency. The libertarian way proves over time to be oblivious to circumstances and psychological conditions, which are in fact the essence of real politics.... Those who look to the likely rout of Republicans like Corey Stewart in November as the shock that will turn the Republican Party against Trump are profoundly misunderstanding what the GOP has been going through for a decade, which is a search—whether through libertarians or nationalists or whomever else might arise—for the perfect anti-establishment vessel. Or as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) put it to me last year, "How could these people let us down? How could they go from being libertarian ideologues to voting for Donald Trump? And then I realized what it was: They weren't voting for the libertarian in the race, they were voting for the craziest son of a bitch in the race when they voted for me and Rand and Ron earlier. So Trump just won, you know, that category, but dumped the ideological baggage."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Gatlin (#0)
(Edited)
Libertarians continue to get more out of a Trump presidency than a Xlinton one. It's not much more complicated than that. As for the decline of libertarianism in the GOP (along with the decline of the internationalists, the conservatives and the free traders), that is a temporary matter. When Trump eclipses as a lame duck or leaves the presidency, these issues will return to GOP politics with the same force they had before.
Legalized marijuana LiberaTarians Will fade away Love If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
Of course you do, as stongly evidence by your statement here.
I don't think any of the usual GOP factions have gone away or changed substantially in a permanent way. Those elements are there for unchanging political reasons and they all have their constituencies within the party. But Trump is the center of Trumpworld. So all these concerns go on the back burner for now. You are a fool if you think there is anything permanent about that. They will all return when Trump's primacy wanes or ends, probably with a vengeance.
"Those dad-blasted libertarians are ruining the country
Dearest Libertarians, Save us please! Before you stands the greatest opportunity in a lifetime. Those cruel, almighty, and vengeful gods of politics have just handed you a gift on high. A gift in the form of two of the most despised presidential candidates in the history of our nation. This is your moment. The spotlight is on you now! What will you say? “We are fiscally conservative, but socially liberal.” Awesome, I like it. What else? “We stand for greater individual responsibility and less government intervention.” Okay, cool, what does that look like? “Lower taxes and less spending.” Alright, well Republicans promise the same, but I am still with you there. How would you achieve that? “By shrinking government,” okay, but, “by eliminating the Department of XXXX!” Whoa, wait what? Leading Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson recently revealed the new slogan #MakeAmericaSaneAgain. Given this year’s circus of a primary it is certainly appropriate, but I am here to tell you right now that crazy calling crazy crazy, doesn't really pull much weight with American’s sane. As an independent that is deeply frustrated with status quo politics, I have tried — I mean really tried — to be Libertarian. Yet over and over, each time I try, what starts out with some really good principles ends up devolving into some really insane assumptions about what kind of reforms are reasonable or even physically possible. When you go to the Libertarian Party website — aside from feeling that you just took an internet time machine back to the 90s — you can find plenty of examples of what happens when good principles go off the rails. Compared to the websites for the Democrats and the Grand Old Party, which are intentionally vague about what you need to support the party, Libertarians make you feel like you are joining a cult. Just look how new members are asked at the very top to: “certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.” Seriously, what does that even mean? For a party that claims to “live and let live,” why would you ever force people to certify that they are against the initiation of force?! Shouldn’t that just go without need of saying? From past conversations with a high-ranking Libertarian Party leader, I always get a similar vibe. You must either be in whole hog or you are not a libertarian. For the party that supposedly embraces individual liberty, it sure stinks of authoritarianism. Sure, every party has its dogma — it is what gives them color — but it should never be more than a force like gravity, steadily pulling policies toward the mass of its principles. A party run by stodgy intellects insisting that dogma trump political reality, however, is destined to go no where. Enter the opportunity of this election. To break out of obscurity, the Libertarian Party will have to be well, more libertarian. Let the “party of principle” pull people in without precondition and then see what “the people” come up with. If you stand for free markets, do not cram dogma down our throats. Use the post 1990s web to open up a free market of ideas. Most importantly though, start explaining how we can achieve real reform when Congress is — by almost every measure — completely broken. The game of promising the moon in presidential elections is up. The people have figured out that the system is rigged and that no matter who wins and what is promised, until Congress is fixed, none of it will happen as it actually should. Sure, with Republicans you might get a prescription drug program for seniors, but not before the drug companies have their way with it. With Democrats you might get health care for all, but not before the medical and insurance lobbies define all the rules. It is not the President stuffing these bills either, and just vetoing every such bill would only leave the underlying problems unsolved. If Libertarians want to play the role of savior in 2016, then they need to start offering tangible, sane solutions. First and foremost, however, they need to explain how they will fix democracy first. How else can Libertarians ever expect to win enough campaigns to matter, when winning is largely dependent upon whoever can secure the most private support for a public office? How else can Libertarians ever get enough votes in districts that are blatantly gerrymandered to rig elections for major party candidates? How else will all those millions of would-be Libertarians ever get registered to vote and to the polls, when access to voting is being manipulated by both major parties? You cannot just put your faith in starting a “political revolution” and you cannot just promise to “make America great again”. Sure, #MakeAmericaSaneAgain at least sounds like a step in the right direction, but #MakeDemocracySaneAgain is a far more accurate slogan. It is insane that Congress spends more time raising campaign money than it does governing. It is insane that we have a revolving door between Congress and lobbying. It is insane that we have winner-take-all elections, and it is insane that voting be even the slightest bit harder than integrity requires. By fixing those problems first, Libertarians have a golden opportunity to put Americans back in the driver seat. To be the voice of reason, you have to start with both what is reasonable and what will have the greatest return on value. Then, and only then can we talk with any seriousness of cutting taxes and spending, stopping endless war, and all those other “big government” problems.
You Trumpkin/Koch brothers Fake libertarian global crony-capitalists, are headed for the ash heap of history. Your neocon moment is about over. In a recent New York Magazine article, prominent political commentator Jonathan Chait argues that libertarians have largely come around to supporting Trump, despite some previous doubts: When Donald Trump first emerged as a genuine threat to seize the Republican nomination, Charles and David Koch represented the epitome of elite right-wing opposition to the populist interloper.... The latest development in the relationship between the Kochs (right-wing heirs to a business fortune) and Trump (also the right-wing heir to a business fortune) is that the former have thrown the weight of their massive organization unhesitatingly behind the latter. Largely satisfied with Trump's conservative judicial appointments, lax regulation of business, and regressive tax cutting, the Kochs are spending several hundred millions of dollars to protect the Republican majority. Whatever points of contention remain between the two have been reduced to squabbles between friends. The Koch rapprochement mirrors a broader trend: Among the conservative intelligentsia — where resistance to Trump has always run far deeper than it has among the Republican rank and file — libertarians have displayed some of the greatest levels of friendliness to the Trump administration. Chait reaches this conclusion only by completely ignoring several of the nation's leading libertarian organizations and intellectuals, and the positions they have taken on the administration. The only libertarian critics of Trump he mentions are those associated with the Niskanen Center, which he describes (with some justice) as having moved away from traditional libertarian positions on many economic issues, and therefore not very representative of libertarians generally. Rep. Justin Amash, probably the most libertarian member of Congress, has also been one of the most thoroughgoing GOP critics of Trump. The same goes for libertarian-leaning GOP Senator Jeff Flake. Chait cites Ron Paul and Rand Paul as examples of libertarian-leaning politicians who have "staunchly defended the president." I am, to understate the point, no great fan of Ron Paul. But Chait is simply wrong about his take on Trump. Paul has been consistently negative about the president, whose economic and foreign policies he recently denounced in the course of an interview in where he also expressed the hope that Trump will be vulnerable in the 2020 GOP primaries. Unlike his father, Rand Paul, in my view, has indeed been overly friendly with the administration on some issues. And he has gotten - and deserves - considerable libertarian criticism for actions such as voting to confirm Jeff Sessions as attorney general. But he has also publicly attacked it on important issues like sentencing, electronic surveillance, marijuana legalization, and others. It is entirely fair to criticize Rand Paul for being too soft on Trump. But it is also important to recognize that he has been at odds with the president considerably more often than most members of Congress typically oppose an administration of their own party. The main villains of Chait's piece (as of many other recent left-wing attacks on libertarians) are the Koch brothers - the libertarian billionaires who fund a variety of political and social causes. It is indeed true that they plan to spend a lot of money trying to maintain GOP majorities in Congress. I think they are wrong to do so. In addition, to imposing tougher constraints on Trump, the return of divided government is desirable from a libertarian point of view, because divided government tends to reduce government spending relative to unified government. It does not follow, however, that the Kochs have "thrown the weight of their massive organization unhesitatingly behind" Trump. Far from it. In addition to spending money on congressional races, the Kochs have also, in recent months, devoted extensive resources to lobbying Congress to protect DACA recipients without simultaneously reducing legal immigration (the latter, of course, a major priority of Trump's), protecting immigrants more generally, opposing Jeff Sessions' efforts to expand the War on Drugs, and promoting criminal justice reform of a sort that is largely the opposite of the administration's philosophy. I am obviously not privy to the Kochs political calculations. But it is possible they believe that, given various tensions between the congressional GOP and Trump, supporting the former does not imply supporting the latter, and that continued GOP majorities in Congress won't do much to help Trump on those issues where he is especially odious (immigration, trade, civil liberties). It is also possible they think that - given his record unpopularity - Trump is unlikely to be reelected, and they want to maintain GOP control of Congress as a hedge against what might be a very liberal Democratic president elected in 2020. If these are indeed the Kochs' views, I have considerable reservations about them, for the reasons I noted above. But a libertarian can hold them without "unhesitatingly" supporting Trump, and indeed without necessarily supporting him much at all. To say that Chait's indictment of libertarians is wrong, is not to say that all is well with the libertarian world. Some libertarians have indeed supported the administration far more than can be justified - in most cases not because of love of Trump, but because of fear of the left. At least for the moment, Bernie Sanders-style left-wing populism is gaining ground in the Democratic party, and it is understandable for libertarians to fear the rise of a movement that seeks to massively expand government control over the economy and society, especially one led by a man notorious for his praise of brutal communist regimes. Unfortunately, such fear leads some libertarians to take it easy on an administration they see as a valuable "enemy of my enemy." It may also account for the Kochs' overly optimistic take on the consequences of maintaining GOP control of Congress. Many libertarians (like many other people) may not realize that the administration's extensive expansion of regulation on immigration and trade increase government control over the economy and society a good deal more than its relatively limited deregulatory actions elsewhere have reduced it. Even more troublingly, a small but vocal group of self-described libertarians have supported the administration and right-wing "blood and soil" nationalism not as a lesser evil, but as a positive good. In my view, and that of most mainstream libertarian intellectuals, such ideas are utterly inimical to the libertarian tradition, properly understood. But it cannot be denied that they have appeal for some people who think of themselves as libertarians, and that libertarians need to do more to counter their rise. In sum, Chait is wrong to tar libertarians, as a group, for supposedly being thoroughgoing supporters of Trump. But it would also be wrong for libertarians to become complacent about either Trump, or the more general threat to liberty posed by the kind of nationalism he exemplifies.
I should be around for a few days. I will try to catch you tomorrow. Good Night …
Yes, that is what they are. libertarians: fiscally conservative and socially liberal. And Republicans (when they're not simply careerists) are fiscally and socially conservative. Democrats, meanwhile, are fiscally and socially liberal. There is no party in America that represents people like me: fiscally liberal and socially conservative. That's a Latin view of the world, and with the rise in Latinos, there is some hope that the Democrat Party will actually become that. Then I may join it.
ABSOLUTE freedom of religion means human sacrifice, if the god wants that. It also means child marriage and polygamy. Our society could probably tolerate polygamy, but not the other two things. No, people can't have absolute freedom of religion. ABSOLUTE freedom of speech means the right to go unpunished for fraud, slander, treason and child pornography. Unacceptable. We can - and should - have STRONGER freedom of speech than we already have - I will agree to that. But ABSOLUTE? No way.
A belief is simply an assumed truth. Hence everything is a belief -- including this statement. The list of beliefs you posted is a complete non-sequitur and it proves absolutely nothing. It’s simply a random and baseless assertion which is completely empty of any evidence backing successes. Once libertarians decides they believe something, they will tend to keep on believing it, even in the face of disconfirming factual evidence that beliefs are NOT accomplishments. No one or anything can change their channeled minds. Libertarians’ problem is that when they believe in something, they will disbelieve in anything that contradicts the primary beliefs they established. Unfortunately for them, this results in their having one belief system and many disbelief systems. Libertarian beliefs don’t mean anything when they are only mythical dreams. If you want to show me something productively real, then show me a list of the libertarian accomplishments that have improved America. Your turn now ...
All those in Congress who oppose Trump's tariffs should sign a pledge not to spend the money received from those tariffs, but to return that amount to the U.S. taxpayers. I mean, it would be highly hypocritical to oppose the tariffs but gleefully spend the money on some pet project. Right?
Hmmm. So you favor increasing taxes -- but then what do you spend that money on?
There are really just two sides to political sphere. Anarchy and slavery. Anarchy's politically closest group is Libertarianism and Slavery's closest group is Marxism. If you are center right you belong in the libertarian group and if you are center left you belong in the Marxist group. As grownups we realize extremism doesn't work. This is why you mellow from extreme positions and find some happy medium between Libertarian/Marxist position and center. Those with mental issues never realize the extreme position and stay at the extreme position all their life. Those that are center and stay there also have mental issues and can't decide and have a wishy washy life of they really stand for nothing. I personally stand of the libertarian side and try to always side on freedom of choice over restriction of choice. But we can't in a society always have total freedom for the good of society.
No, I don't. I favor evenly distributing taxes across the entire wealth spectrum, which would have the effect of raising the taxes on the wealthy so they pay the same proportion of their wealth in taxes every year that the middle class does. We can leave the RATES alone, but the BASE needs to expand to include all of the tax-exempt ways that the wealthy shelter their asset types from taxation. I favor significantly reducing the US military footprint, bringing the forces home, and relying more heavily on nuclear deterrence. This will cut expenses. I favor legalizing pot and lowering the drinking age to 18, and more heavily taxing alcohol, tobacco and cigarettes. This will raise a lot of revenue. It will also permit cuts in police and prison forces similar to the military cuts. I favor making Social Security the universal retirement plan, available to all. It already is this, but I would make it THE retirement plan, as opposed to the hodge-podge we have. I favor a French-style health system, with strong tort reform. Rather than pouring money into social welfare programs to support destitute immigrants north of the border, and pouring money into the Jewish colony in the Middle East to satisfy defense contractors and snake-handling Protestants, we should be redirecting our foreign aid specifically into developing and stabilizing Mexico and Central America, so that people stay there and work. If we're going to have a flow across the border, let's make that real trade as opposed to desperate economic refugees. THAT is the primary American national security interest: not further over-arming Israel or swinging a big stick in Asia or squabbling about the Crimea - THOSE things are not really threats to us AT ALL. Central America's economic woes DIRECTLY affect our crime rate, welfare problems, school issues, drug issues - everything. We have decided we are going to be our brother's keeper already, but the brother who really needs our help for our OWN good, lives right nextdoor. Europe, Israel and Asia don't really need our help. They like to exploit it because it saves them money. Mexico and Central America are blighted houses in our OWN neighborhood. If our foreign aid poured into there, we could develop THOSE countries like we have so many others, and then there would really be trade and prosperity, and our OWN social woes would dramatically reduce. So, those are the things on which I would spend money. I would make members of Congress have to obey with all of the laws they enact too.
Hilarious... Gatlin -- who at one time openly fronted for AND extolled the "virtues" of the subversive ACLU -- is calling YOU and Libertarians out?? RICH. The ACLU is Communism thinly veiling its FASCISM. It is about enforcing *unreasonable* rules and restrictions which restrain and obliterate common sense and true freedom. Libertarianism *at it's extreme* is the polar opposite. In NEITHER case did the Founders intend either for this Republic. And for what it's worth, yes, Constitutional Libertarianism is EXACTLY what Trump and Reagan are and were. NOT to mention the Founders. Real Libertarianism IS "conservatism" at its sweet spot. Gatlin has always been an extreme Statist, a rigid Authoritarian.
Yup. And the way politics is panning out, one either must commit to Trump's pro-sovereignty side OR the other -- the "We-Are-da Wirld" fake utopia and enslavement of the Democrat-Communist camp.
According to Major Burns: Let’s Abandon The Term ‘Statist’
Fixed it for you.
Yeah, right. While we're at that we'll also abandon the term "Fake News". These people (The Left's Fascists and Authoritarian Statists) are about ONE thing: CONTROL.
Gotta say; Yes, the GOP has indeed been "changed substantially". And so too has the Dem Party. Trump necessarily shoved the GOP toward the right, while the Left has lurched toward its the Left's extreme. In the coming election, MOST Americans prefer "MAGA" over "Make-America -Venezuela".
Same.
If Trump were gone tomorrow, all the usual GOP factions would be duking it out for party leadership. National security, internationalists, free traders, neocons, libertarians, religious conservatives, etc. All the usual players in presidential primaries. And with plenty of others like the corn lobby or Big Pharma lurking in the shadows. No, Trump displaces all those usual GOP concerns but they have not disappeared. And when Trump is gone, they will return with a vengeance.
Can you imagine THAT melee?? All the usual players in presidential primaries. As always. Sure, the "usual suspects" and "same ol'" past political systems/machinations will still be at the gate. Including special interest and lobbyists and...Establishment Elite types. But what Trump has accomplished is create a new sense and realm of thinking and consideration of candidates by the electorate. Passion and Possibility is the New Paradigm. Trump displaces all those usual GOP concerns but they have not disappeared. And when Trump is gone, they will return with a vengeance. Well, if Trump does indeed win in 2020, the Establishment Party-people won't have their usual clout while Trumpian Independents will be establishing stronger Republican roots. You've made an interesting point and projection that reinforces the ongoing alliance of GOPe with the DEMe. (Which is why the Witch Hunt has been allowed to fester for 18 months, without any complaint from GOPe McConnell/Ryan, and WITHOUT any indictments and/or jailtime.)
Yet another worthless non-sequitur, and a completely baseless assertion which continues to exhibit some of that misogyny that you libertarians are notorious for. The recommendation came from one of your fellow libertarians, Nathan Kreider, when he posted it on beinglibertarian.com. You libertarians have so much trouble articulating your warped thoughts that I would never want to further restrict your limited communication skills by additionally handicapping your inability to speak fluently and coherently.
yet - you did post the article.
You posted: It was according to one of your fellow libertarians, Nathan Kreider. It was he who posted it on beinglibertarian.com. and said: “Let’s Abandon The Term ‘Statist.” I merely posted the article. I never said I support the idea or not, did I? No. Why are you always such an ignorant asshole who NEVER gets anything right?
#2. To: Gatlin (#0)
boris
#3. To: Tooconservative (#1)
As for the decline of libertarianism in the GOP (along with the decline of the internationalists, the conservatives and the free traders), that is a temporary matter.
Rationalize much….do you?
#4. To: Gatlin (#3)
#5. To: Gatlin (#3)
.jpg&f=1)
with their newfangled ideas, I tell ya."
#6. To: Tooconservative (#4)
Libertarians ready to claim 2018, 2020 elections
#7. To: Tooconservative (#6)
Libertarians ready to claim 2018, 2020 elections.
#8. To: Gatlin, Koch fake libertarians, aka Trump globalist neocon establishment (#0)
(Edited)
Reason
No, Libertarians Have Not Thrown in With Trump
Jonathan Chait's accusations to the contrary ignore a great deal of the actual libertarian reaction to the president's policies. But some libertarians are indeed too soft on both Trump and right-wing nationalism generally.
The porcupine is often considered a symbol of libertarianism.
He does not even discuss the Cato Institute - by far the best known libertarian think tank or Reason (the nation's most prominent libertarian magazine and website). Cato and Reason writers such as Alex Nowrasteh and Shikha Dalmia have been among the toughest and most prominent critics of Trump's attacks on immigration. Others at both organizations have been harshly critical of the administration on trade, government spending, civil liberties, executive power (Gene Healy, Cato's leading expert on this subject, has argued that Trump should be impeached), health care reform, and a good many other issues.
#9. To: Tooconservative (#7)
(Edited)
Spending this evening with you has been a blast.
#10. To: Gatlin (#0)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Trump: My People Should ‘Sit Up in Attention’ Like Kim Jong-un’s Staff.
#11. To: Gatlin (#6)
(Edited)
“We are fiscally conservative, but socially liberal.”
#12. To: Deckard (#10)
#13. To: Deckard (#10)
(Edited)
Posted list of things libertarians believe ...
My reaction to this is....SO WHAT? I will give you a shining example. When an individual believes in one religion, they will come to accept all the tenets of that religion. Then they tend to disbelieve in all other religions, rejecting outright (and often without any understanding of) the things that believers in others systems hold to be absolute truths.
Libertarians give no considerations to others. They are a bunch of egotistical self-centered assholes engrossed solely with their own interests and never giving consideration to those who do not share their views. Everyone who does not believe as a libertarian does is classified by them as despicable statists.
#14. To: Gatlin (#0)
#15. To: Vicomte13 (#11)
fiscally liberal and socially conservative.
#16. To: Gatlin (#0)
#17. To: misterwhite (#15)
Hmmm. So you favor increasing taxes -- but then what do you spend that money on?
#18. To: Tooconservative, Gatlin, aka ACLU-SHILL (#1)
#19. To: Justified (#16)
There are really just two sides to political sphere. Anarchy and slavery. Anarchy's politically closest group is Libertarianism and Slavery's closest group is Marxism.
#20. To: Liberator (#18)
Gatlin has always been an extreme Statist,
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Trump: My People Should ‘Sit Up in Attention’ Like Kim Jong-un’s Staff.
#21. To: Liberator, Boss Tater (#18)
Gatlin has always been an extreme Statist, a
rigid rabid Authoritarian.
#22. To: Deckard (#20)
According to Major Burns: Let’s Abandon The Term ‘Statist’
#23. To: Tooconservative (#4)
I don't think any of the usual GOP factions have gone away or changed substantially in a permanent way.
#24. To: hondo68 (#21)
#25. To: Liberator (#23)
Gotta say; Yes, the GOP has indeed been "changed substantially". And so too has the Dem Party.
#26. To: Tooconservative (#25)
If Trump were gone tomorrow, all the usual GOP factions would be duking it out for party leadership.
#27. To: Deckard (#20)
(Edited)
According to Major Burns: Let’s Abandon The Term ‘Statist’
Bzzzt....WRONG.
#28. To: Gatlin (#27)
Yet another worthless non-sequitur, and a completely baseless assertion...
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Trump: My People Should ‘Sit Up in Attention’ Like Kim Jong-un’s Staff.
#29. To: LF's very own Soverign Citizen (#28)
Reading comprehension has always been a major problem for you libertarians. Here, let me help you. According to Major Burns: Let’s Abandon The Term ‘Statist’
That was wrong. I merely pointed out your stupidity.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]