Libertarians have always been corporatist shills. They are there to convince conservatives that corporations are good as they are getting crushed by these same corporations.
Sooooo spot on.
I feel like Libertarians cherry pick shit they like from Thomas Paine and others and never acknowledge the parts they did not cherry pick. And then disingenuously quote their cherry picks.
Thomas Paineās entire political philosophy has the stupidity of human nature as his main foundation in thinking out every point he makes regarding government.
Spot on. A friend of mine I grew up with was a staunch libertarian - I was more liberal at the time (2x Obama voter) and always thought libertarianism in modern political philosophy was a nice thought, but ultimately a ridiculous endeavor. I understood that the meddlesome nature of the human condition would be its downfall. Now that I'm a little bit older, libertarianism reeks of political immaturity, IMO.
What's interesting is that friend of mine (who I no longer bother with) is now a lefty faggot who may as well be a commie. He denies it, but it's as plain as day. Though socialism/communism and libertarianism have essentially nothing in common, they appeal to the same clsss of the politically uninformed. As an individual's circumstances in life change and they remain undeveloped in a particular area, it is likely their personal beliefs will shift to something equally stupid. My friend's libertarian beliefs were a result of his middle-class upbringing and stable environment. As he began to experience legal problems and a lack of career options in his twenties, his need for structure increased - thus his now love for big government and its daily intrusion into our lives. He loves it!
libertarianism is the right direction. You wouldn't want to go the whole way as if enacted in it's entirety would be horrible. If mostly implemented would be considerably better than our current position. I'm with the guy who said he wants government small enough he could drown it in the bath tub but also believe government is a required evil.
I agree with you as well. Libertarianism has some good ideas and we should implement them, but it is a flawed ideology because it doesn't account for human nature.
I disagree.
They are more about taking the least offensive successful approach toward the future.
Notice when the left responded to Trump by moving its own social platform in a contrarian manner that the libertarians moved right with them.
Thatās because they desperately seek that social approval and are easily manipulated.
I have said it before. The entire party is a Trojan horse to help the left achieve its social goals.
I think thatās why the refer to it as little l and big L. Libertarianism as an ideal that we live by isnāt the same thing as the big L, the crazy ass libertarian party.
I used to frequent Reason all the time. They've always have some impressively dedicated trolls in the comments. I don't visit much any more, but do check in on occasion, including today. There's an article about how bad it is to worry about mail in voting. It's a shit article, but just as I expected, the author got savaged in the comments. Every time I've checked in on Reason the past few years, I've seen the same thing. TDS editorial, comments saying "AYFKM? What happened to this publication?"
I don't know if they got bought out or compromised or what, or if cucking just comes naturally to pundits. Nonetheless, it's refreshing to see that the userbase still recognizes bullshit when they see it.
Same thing happened to a few websites.. I think liberals have been buying them out.. someone should look into it.. the intercept was once a really good website and it even broke the Edward Snowden story..
go to The intercept under Donald Trump and it's just a bunch of left-wing rad bullshit.. The Huffington Post was even once half decent. They ran a few stories under the 2016 election interviewing experts on fascism who said that Donald Trump wasn't fascist.. they even did a few on how trump didnt call mexican rapistss
At the end of the election though their coverage completely changed.. they had that wasn't a far left nut j
Libertarians are retarded. They immediately sided with Democrats once Trump won. That's why the Libertarian Party sucks. They accepted a boatload of Democrat cash and for the next 4 years sided with Democrats on basically everything. Justin Amash supported every fake impeachment and sided with Democrats when we all knew they massively abused the surveillance state to weaponize government against their political opposition but they still sided with them anyways. Libertarian party an Libertarian mouth pieces are fucking retarded. This coming from someone who's pretty fuckin libertarian but also not a retard who wants completely free trade and open borders while they could care less about dismantling the welfare state first. Smart libertarians went the way of Stefan Molyneux and realized we don't have time to undo 30 years of commie indoctrination to convince stupid people why libertarian ideas might be better before the complete destruction of the country takes place thus requiring more drastic and immediate actions so we still have the chance to have these conversations in the future.
I used to self-identify as a libertarian when Bob Barr was the candidate and the leading figures were Ron Paul and John Stossel. Today, I'd consider it an insult, even if you called them "smart libertarians".
Libertarian is synonymous with contrarian corporate bootlicker at this point. We need a new label for people who are okay with regulating giant corporations with way too much power but want small businesses and individuals to have nearly full freedom. Who think trust-busting is a great idea and that oligopolies and monopolies are in complete opposition to the principles that make free-market capitalism good and efficient.
Mmhmm. I posit a lot of these centrist, or classical liberal left of centre or slightly right of centre magazines, websites etc just got progressively skin suited by hard lefties with too much time on their hands. Those with too little to do with their time usually find no problem wasting the time of others.
The old joke goes that conservatives, classical liberals and libertarians would be out protesting but they are too busy working.
Itās bemusing to see so many āactivistsā and Pantiefa always out til all hours. Do these children not have any work to do?! Go tidy your room.
Rational-Wiki used to be reasonable too. Now itās just a snark holier than thou fest.
Diversity in their eyes would also mean a company ran entirely by black people is diverse, but a company ran 65% by whites, 35% by other races "isn't diverse enough".
It's like how 6% of America makes it into 85%+ of all commercials.
Almost everything Reason or low IQ libertarians advocate for has nothing to do with a free market. Our current system with transnational corporations is so far removed from anything resembling a free market. Monopolies and cartels arise because of government interference, subsidizing, and heavy-handed regulations. When someone is defending the rights of these large āprivateā corporations and institutions, they are defending the network of politicians and bureaucrats that prop them up. Free markets and free trade is ideally the most efficient way to run an economy, but given the relationship of governments and corporations (even outside the United States), we arenāt even close to being there. Thatās why antitrust legislation and regulations to protect civil liberties is so important because there are no other āfree marketā solutions since we do not exist in one. It would be great to live in a world where they wouldnāt be needed, but that is a delusional pipe dream, much like the communists who constantly claim that ārealā communism has never been tried.
They're also pro-slavery. By that, I mean they think anyone in the world should be able to waltz into the U.S. and stay here. Since we know they are nothing more than a slave class and/or criminals, anyone who is for open borders is pro-slavery.
Back in the Ron Paul days it was about personal liberty and small government. But an ever growing section of the country are gimme dats and border jumpers. Those populations can't self govern, so this concept won't work.
That's the only thing Ron didnt do, was wrestle the reigns of what it means to be a Libertarian as a U.S citizen.
Now in that wake populism has taken up the bastion of being everything Libertarians should have been in recognizing the evil necessity of the state on a national scale but protecting the rights on the individual scale.
Well I'm a libertarian and don't care about drugs, but regardless think they should be legal.
Only retard libertarians want zero laws. Legalizing drugs would have to come with social conduct laws (Illegal to be homeless).
I want a society where you are either self sufficient, accept gov help at the expense of liberity (e.g. rehab, job assignment, someone waking you up at 6 AM to do community service, etc), or exiled to some desigated zone with 0 funding or goverment and just other degenerates and you are totally on your own
A small tropical island nation is perfect for growing sugarcane. They devote most of their agricultural capacity to it, and export sugar, using the profits to import the food they need. Then their crops get hit by a disease that just hits sugarcane. Or their main trading partner moves to another source for sugar. They are devastated. Not just one business or industry, but an indispensable foundation of their whole economy. One hiccup has made it so they can't feed their own people. Because it was more "efficient" to go all in on one commodity and be dependent on others for the basics.
Imagine:
A country outsources almost all of their manufacturing capacity to another country. Then that country becomes hostile. Or that country faces a crisis that requires them to use all those resources for themselves. Now the first country is left high and dry, because it was "cheaper" to let the other country take care of the basics.
Imagine:
A web services company decides to let another company handle all their cloud computing. Then the bigger company decides to put the boot down and kick the first company off their platform. A company is destroyed on someone else's whim, because it was "easier" to let a specialized market middleman hold the keys to the castle.
Globalist "efficiency" is a trap. It's a web to catch unsuspecting flies. It's a vulnerability, it's fragility, it's a thermal exhaust port. The trap may be sprung by accident or by evil. It doesn't matter. Either way, it kills you just the same.
This is not a difficult lesson to learn. It's easy to understand and easy to spot when it happens, which it does often. Anyone who deliberately denies the hazard can safely be assumed to be either a shill for something sinister, or a dunce.
That's funny because the way I view efficiency and how my grandfather told me was the ability to get everything I need without going too far.
Just because Country A B C and D may be efficient in making 1 widget specialization each to me seems highly inefficient because of transportation. Where as having one country having the ability to create the 4 specialized widgets to me is efficient. Since as a person who needs those widgets I can go directly to the source (within a 50 mile radius) and pick up all the parts just in case the local -mart doesn't have them.
At some point libertarians do not recognize that supply chains are a thing and hinging the whole global market on very specific countries making very specific things eventually fucks everything up.
Making everything in house has always been the most efficient when it comes to production. You can monitor quality easily and keep on a eye on production. Exporting manufacturing is highly inefficient and those who buy into that 'free trade' are just morons.
I believe in free trade but itās very dangerous to rely on one place for one thing. Weāve already seen this with PPE from China. Actually everything from China. But I donāt think free trade means lacking redundancy. Redundancy is just smart in any situation where you canāt afford a critical failure. One is none and two is one.
Honestly Free trade is never free. There's always a cost, its always hidden to the end user. Its peddled as a fake salvation when in reality it does nothing to help both sides. It often leads to one-sided issues and exploitation.
Even the late Milton Freedman who was a proponent of free trade always made mention of the benefit cost. That in reality both sides should strive to make trade equitable more than free. As access to both markets domestic and international are a benefit to a free market.
Populism is "the people" opposing "the elites". The elites are the ones telling you populism is bad. Methinks there might be a tiny conflict of interest there.
Of course not, if they attempt to tell us "we want to go back to a society where even the illusion of freedom and self reliance are gone" and in a way everyone understands we probably would give them a long drop and a sudden stop.
Truth is they see themselves as the philosopher kings of old they want us to worship them bot because they are great or have done great things but because they have a magic bloodline, the divine right to rule, mandate of heaven, or what have you.
The founders proved that we don't want them, need them, and shouldn't tolerate them this globalist scheme is just a massive undertaking to put their heel back on our collective throats while destroying any and all memory people were ever free and able to rule themselves.
Exactly. In its simplest terms, populism is the rejection of the rulers by the ruled but in a massive movement not through violent revolution but peaceful change.
The Libertarian party and liberal Cosmotarians (cosmo-sipping wanna be limousine liberals who claim to be libertarians) like the turds at reason are why I tell people I am "not a big L libertarian." Want nothing to do with those people.
It shouldn't though, they aren't conservatives and they never claimed they were. They are libertarians, if anything, they should make people hate libertarianism.
No! You are supposed to do politics through catering to small vested interest groups which you have to reward with toxic retarded legislation like near 60 EOs in the first month.
How dare you create a philosophical basis that has broad appeal to the populace with no favors owed instead!
Big tech also gives these institutions a lot of money to persuade conservatives that the tyranny of big tech is fine because it isn't coming from the government.
Jesus CHRIST. Take a look at Cuomo's killing fields, or Whitmore the Wench, or BIDEN the fucking demented pervert and his Whore VP Heels up Harris! AOC the Green New Deal Dipshit, Gavin Newsom the Malignant Narcissist, Piss Pants Pelosi and her quest for revenge...God these people are pathetic!
reason magazine has been cucked for a long time. But if you go their website and view the comments, they're amazing. Most of the people commenting are pretty based, and there's a lot of very knowledgeable and interesting commentary.
I used to subscribe to that rag back in the 90's - it seemed solid in those days considering who was running the government at the time. Before the 90's ran out - I stopped subbing - I realized along with many others that this was an inside the beltway operation just like the CATO Institute which I also used to support with donations.
I lost my political innocence completely when I watched the Tea Party be subverted and subsumed by the GOP Inc.
I looked up the author on reason( I do like the website generally )
Peter Suderman is features editor at Reason. He writes regularly on health care, the federal budget, tech policy, and pop culture.
Before joining Reason, Suderman worked as a writer and editor at National Review, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, FreedomWorks, Doublethink, and Culture11. His writing has appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Slate, The Wall Street Journal, Vox, Politico, The New York Post, Newsweek, The Washington Examiner, and numerous other publications. He lives in Washington, D.C.
so hes a writer for the nyt, wapo, slate, sjw, vox, poolitico and lives in DC. 'nuff said...
ReasonTV has a strong case of TDS. They have legitimate objections to some of the Trump platform, but it makes them blind to the many areas where they agree.
What's with Libertarian "intellectuals"? lol They always go Galt whenever they perceive a threat to their precious "free markets". The irony, of course, is that their definition of "free markets" is just globalism, open borders, and state capitalism by Orwellian antonym.
Another example of why a 3rd Party is mandatory. āEverythingā remotely linked to the Republican Party or opposition to the Progressives have been infiltrated. These examples are used as āI told you soā catch phrases.
I donāt disagree w/this concept to get people involved, but donāt allow yourself to get locked in on any one way forward. Another challenge reforming the Republican Party, and there are many is the RNC. Their fundraising is for the establishment, so while your getting involved w/the precinct project plan for a new fundraising operation.
The vast majority of āLibertariansā that run for office are controlled opposition by the Democrats for the sole purpose of taking a few percentage points away from Republicans to elect Democrats.
Reason is such a piece of shit. At least half of the people working there voted Obama, and before the election they claimed there was no reason to vote for President Trump over Biden.
There's no such thing as 'toxic populism' you fucking retards. How' bout 'toxic oligarchy' for a headline you phony libertarian faggots. All these mainstream and semi-mainstream media rags say the SAME FUCKING THING. Diversity of opinion is non-existent.
They love leftist populism because they're brainless sheep; they go wherever their drovers herd them. If it's rightist, they can't control it.
Rightist revolutions are a leftist demagogue's worst nightmare. That's why we're being suppressed and persecuted right now.
"Free minds and free markets."
"POPULISM IS BAD."
Free markets except for ideas, then we will tell you what's good.
Diversity. Except diversity of opinion.
Inclusion. As long as you exclude Pupulism
What the hell happened to reason. The TDS in editorial and some of the commenters is unreal.
Libertarians have always been corporatist shills. They are there to convince conservatives that corporations are good as they are getting crushed by these same corporations.
Libertarianism is the rightās answer to Communismāan ideology that would work real well, if human nature were completely different.
This is precisely what I think of libertarianism.
"you just gotta repeal all the laws mannnnnn. People will totally be good mannn""
Takes another hit from bong
Sooooo spot on.
I feel like Libertarians cherry pick shit they like from Thomas Paine and others and never acknowledge the parts they did not cherry pick. And then disingenuously quote their cherry picks. Thomas Paineās entire political philosophy has the stupidity of human nature as his main foundation in thinking out every point he makes regarding government.
Spot on comment! Thank you!
Spot on. A friend of mine I grew up with was a staunch libertarian - I was more liberal at the time (2x Obama voter) and always thought libertarianism in modern political philosophy was a nice thought, but ultimately a ridiculous endeavor. I understood that the meddlesome nature of the human condition would be its downfall. Now that I'm a little bit older, libertarianism reeks of political immaturity, IMO.
What's interesting is that friend of mine (who I no longer bother with) is now a lefty faggot who may as well be a commie. He denies it, but it's as plain as day. Though socialism/communism and libertarianism have essentially nothing in common, they appeal to the same clsss of the politically uninformed. As an individual's circumstances in life change and they remain undeveloped in a particular area, it is likely their personal beliefs will shift to something equally stupid. My friend's libertarian beliefs were a result of his middle-class upbringing and stable environment. As he began to experience legal problems and a lack of career options in his twenties, his need for structure increased - thus his now love for big government and its daily intrusion into our lives. He loves it!
libertarianism is the right direction. You wouldn't want to go the whole way as if enacted in it's entirety would be horrible. If mostly implemented would be considerably better than our current position. I'm with the guy who said he wants government small enough he could drown it in the bath tub but also believe government is a required evil.
I agree with you as well. Libertarianism has some good ideas and we should implement them, but it is a flawed ideology because it doesn't account for human nature.
I disagree. They are more about taking the least offensive successful approach toward the future. Notice when the left responded to Trump by moving its own social platform in a contrarian manner that the libertarians moved right with them. Thatās because they desperately seek that social approval and are easily manipulated. I have said it before. The entire party is a Trojan horse to help the left achieve its social goals.
Not sure I agree. I always thought libertarians were Republicans that like to get high and want to get rid of the federal reserve.
I think thatās why the refer to it as little l and big L. Libertarianism as an ideal that we live by isnāt the same thing as the big L, the crazy ass libertarian party.
Open borders have noting to do with libertarianism. That is what the astroturfed Libertarian Party pushes.
That IS the Libertarian party
No govt=no borderss
I used to frequent Reason all the time. They've always have some impressively dedicated trolls in the comments. I don't visit much any more, but do check in on occasion, including today. There's an article about how bad it is to worry about mail in voting. It's a shit article, but just as I expected, the author got savaged in the comments. Every time I've checked in on Reason the past few years, I've seen the same thing. TDS editorial, comments saying "AYFKM? What happened to this publication?"
I don't know if they got bought out or compromised or what, or if cucking just comes naturally to pundits. Nonetheless, it's refreshing to see that the userbase still recognizes bullshit when they see it.
Same thing happened to a few websites.. I think liberals have been buying them out.. someone should look into it.. the intercept was once a really good website and it even broke the Edward Snowden story..
go to The intercept under Donald Trump and it's just a bunch of left-wing rad bullshit.. The Huffington Post was even once half decent. They ran a few stories under the 2016 election interviewing experts on fascism who said that Donald Trump wasn't fascist.. they even did a few on how trump didnt call mexican rapistss
At the end of the election though their coverage completely changed.. they had that wasn't a far left nut j
When they wanted him to be the R nominee because they were sure he'd be easy to beat.
Huffington post has been trash since day one. Iām old enough to have been there.
ya, it's nice to see that
I saw the same thing looking at one article a while back
Libertarians are retarded. They immediately sided with Democrats once Trump won. That's why the Libertarian Party sucks. They accepted a boatload of Democrat cash and for the next 4 years sided with Democrats on basically everything. Justin Amash supported every fake impeachment and sided with Democrats when we all knew they massively abused the surveillance state to weaponize government against their political opposition but they still sided with them anyways. Libertarian party an Libertarian mouth pieces are fucking retarded. This coming from someone who's pretty fuckin libertarian but also not a retard who wants completely free trade and open borders while they could care less about dismantling the welfare state first. Smart libertarians went the way of Stefan Molyneux and realized we don't have time to undo 30 years of commie indoctrination to convince stupid people why libertarian ideas might be better before the complete destruction of the country takes place thus requiring more drastic and immediate actions so we still have the chance to have these conversations in the future.
I used to self-identify as a libertarian when Bob Barr was the candidate and the leading figures were Ron Paul and John Stossel. Today, I'd consider it an insult, even if you called them "smart libertarians".
Libertarian is synonymous with contrarian corporate bootlicker at this point. We need a new label for people who are okay with regulating giant corporations with way too much power but want small businesses and individuals to have nearly full freedom. Who think trust-busting is a great idea and that oligopolies and monopolies are in complete opposition to the principles that make free-market capitalism good and efficient.
They only exist to suck votes from consversatives. That's why the green party is gone and the democrats give money to the libertarians.
I don't know, but they seem really bipolar now. They have author(s) who still write good articles, and then author(s) who shill this nonsense.
I think they're just grasping at straws to have content that ANYONE will buy.
And to think āReasonā used to be reasonable.
Mmhmm. I posit a lot of these centrist, or classical liberal left of centre or slightly right of centre magazines, websites etc just got progressively skin suited by hard lefties with too much time on their hands. Those with too little to do with their time usually find no problem wasting the time of others.
The old joke goes that conservatives, classical liberals and libertarians would be out protesting but they are too busy working.
Itās bemusing to see so many āactivistsā and Pantiefa always out til all hours. Do these children not have any work to do?! Go tidy your room.
Rational-Wiki used to be reasonable too. Now itās just a snark holier than thou fest.
Diversity in their eyes would also mean a company ran entirely by black people is diverse, but a company ran 65% by whites, 35% by other races "isn't diverse enough".
It's like how 6% of America makes it into 85%+ of all commercials.
As long as you consider everyone being darker than a chocolate bar 'diversity', sure.
Almost everything Reason or low IQ libertarians advocate for has nothing to do with a free market. Our current system with transnational corporations is so far removed from anything resembling a free market. Monopolies and cartels arise because of government interference, subsidizing, and heavy-handed regulations. When someone is defending the rights of these large āprivateā corporations and institutions, they are defending the network of politicians and bureaucrats that prop them up. Free markets and free trade is ideally the most efficient way to run an economy, but given the relationship of governments and corporations (even outside the United States), we arenāt even close to being there. Thatās why antitrust legislation and regulations to protect civil liberties is so important because there are no other āfree marketā solutions since we do not exist in one. It would be great to live in a world where they wouldnāt be needed, but that is a delusional pipe dream, much like the communists who constantly claim that ārealā communism has never been tried.
Every libertarian Iāve met only cares about legalizing drugs.
They like to kill unborn babies too.
They're also pro-slavery. By that, I mean they think anyone in the world should be able to waltz into the U.S. and stay here. Since we know they are nothing more than a slave class and/or criminals, anyone who is for open borders is pro-slavery.
Iāve never understood this as a ālibertarian ā. Surely abortion violates the NAP
Back in the Ron Paul days it was about personal liberty and small government. But an ever growing section of the country are gimme dats and border jumpers. Those populations can't self govern, so this concept won't work.
That's the only thing Ron didnt do, was wrestle the reigns of what it means to be a Libertarian as a U.S citizen.
Now in that wake populism has taken up the bastion of being everything Libertarians should have been in recognizing the evil necessity of the state on a national scale but protecting the rights on the individual scale.
That's just their come-on for the stoner vote.
Well I'm a libertarian and don't care about drugs, but regardless think they should be legal.
Only retard libertarians want zero laws. Legalizing drugs would have to come with social conduct laws (Illegal to be homeless).
I want a society where you are either self sufficient, accept gov help at the expense of liberity (e.g. rehab, job assignment, someone waking you up at 6 AM to do community service, etc), or exiled to some desigated zone with 0 funding or goverment and just other degenerates and you are totally on your own
Imagine:
A small tropical island nation is perfect for growing sugarcane. They devote most of their agricultural capacity to it, and export sugar, using the profits to import the food they need. Then their crops get hit by a disease that just hits sugarcane. Or their main trading partner moves to another source for sugar. They are devastated. Not just one business or industry, but an indispensable foundation of their whole economy. One hiccup has made it so they can't feed their own people. Because it was more "efficient" to go all in on one commodity and be dependent on others for the basics.
Imagine:
A country outsources almost all of their manufacturing capacity to another country. Then that country becomes hostile. Or that country faces a crisis that requires them to use all those resources for themselves. Now the first country is left high and dry, because it was "cheaper" to let the other country take care of the basics.
Imagine:
A web services company decides to let another company handle all their cloud computing. Then the bigger company decides to put the boot down and kick the first company off their platform. A company is destroyed on someone else's whim, because it was "easier" to let a specialized market middleman hold the keys to the castle.
Globalist "efficiency" is a trap. It's a web to catch unsuspecting flies. It's a vulnerability, it's fragility, it's a thermal exhaust port. The trap may be sprung by accident or by evil. It doesn't matter. Either way, it kills you just the same.
This is not a difficult lesson to learn. It's easy to understand and easy to spot when it happens, which it does often. Anyone who deliberately denies the hazard can safely be assumed to be either a shill for something sinister, or a dunce.
That's funny because the way I view efficiency and how my grandfather told me was the ability to get everything I need without going too far.
Just because Country A B C and D may be efficient in making 1 widget specialization each to me seems highly inefficient because of transportation. Where as having one country having the ability to create the 4 specialized widgets to me is efficient. Since as a person who needs those widgets I can go directly to the source (within a 50 mile radius) and pick up all the parts just in case the local -mart doesn't have them.
At some point libertarians do not recognize that supply chains are a thing and hinging the whole global market on very specific countries making very specific things eventually fucks everything up.
Making everything in house has always been the most efficient when it comes to production. You can monitor quality easily and keep on a eye on production. Exporting manufacturing is highly inefficient and those who buy into that 'free trade' are just morons.
I believe in free trade but itās very dangerous to rely on one place for one thing. Weāve already seen this with PPE from China. Actually everything from China. But I donāt think free trade means lacking redundancy. Redundancy is just smart in any situation where you canāt afford a critical failure. One is none and two is one.
Honestly Free trade is never free. There's always a cost, its always hidden to the end user. Its peddled as a fake salvation when in reality it does nothing to help both sides. It often leads to one-sided issues and exploitation.
Even the late Milton Freedman who was a proponent of free trade always made mention of the benefit cost. That in reality both sides should strive to make trade equitable more than free. As access to both markets domestic and international are a benefit to a free market.
venezuela lol
Yuuup.
very good
Good post.
muh free market
rigs the market when hedge funds lose tons of money
muh populism
"PATRIOTISM REEEEEEEEE"
Right!
The wokesters there should scrub their motto off the magazine cover.
And write an apology article: āWhy free minds and free markets leads to populism, and why that is badā
They can also change the name of their magazine by adding a T.
T reason.
Big companies only want atomized individuals.
Hawley is based asf and a true patriot thatās why they fear him so much
Most of us here in MO are proud of him so far.
I like that you added āso farā since we never know for sure what the motives are for some of these politicians.
Also, do these people ever tell us why, specifically, populism is so bad?
Populism is "the people" opposing "the elites". The elites are the ones telling you populism is bad. Methinks there might be a tiny conflict of interest there.
Of course not, if they attempt to tell us "we want to go back to a society where even the illusion of freedom and self reliance are gone" and in a way everyone understands we probably would give them a long drop and a sudden stop.
Truth is they see themselves as the philosopher kings of old they want us to worship them bot because they are great or have done great things but because they have a magic bloodline, the divine right to rule, mandate of heaven, or what have you.
The founders proved that we don't want them, need them, and shouldn't tolerate them this globalist scheme is just a massive undertaking to put their heel back on our collective throats while destroying any and all memory people were ever free and able to rule themselves.
Everywhere you look theres a burg causing shit
Exactly. In its simplest terms, populism is the rejection of the rulers by the ruled but in a massive movement not through violent revolution but peaceful change.
Populism is just what they call democracy when it isn't serving their agenda.
Check out "the populist moment" Basically it explains what is populism and how it happened in the late 1800s in America. I'm reading it now.
Proud to say I voted for him.
Ditto!
Heās not based as fuck heās just a step above the rest.
And what are you gonna do? Vote for him? Votes don't matter.
Unless he actually does shit and gets people to get out there and DO SOMETHING about our slavery and communist takeover, it doesn't matter.
It's ok to be white.
Cuck-a-cola has entered the chat.
It's time for me to stop drinking all coke products
š¤”
https://theprecinctproject.wordpress.com/
"Reasons I left the Libertarian Party for 800, Alex"
The lolbiteran party is a party who hates government intervention but lives corporations who co-operate with government to fuck everybody over.
Reason is one of the magazines that make people hate conservatism.
The Libertarian party and liberal Cosmotarians (cosmo-sipping wanna be limousine liberals who claim to be libertarians) like the turds at reason are why I tell people I am "not a big L libertarian." Want nothing to do with those people.
The ideology and the party are not the same thing.
It shouldn't though, they aren't conservatives and they never claimed they were. They are libertarians, if anything, they should make people hate libertarianism.
Neoconservatives have this weird thing where they claim to be small government libertarians while supporting the Patriot Act and endless wars
>be me
>be libertarian
>think these guys do a lot more talking than fighting
>realize that liberty is pointless without a healthy culture
>realize that liberty is impossible without a healthy culture
>realize Libertarianism intentionally abdicates all cultural value judgements
>realize Libertarianism is therefore useless for advancing liberty
>realize they don't care
>"holy shit you guys just get off on smug superiority, don't you?"
>get on board the Trump Train
>CHOO CHOO
>no brakes
Holy shit, literally exactly the same ahit I went through.
Lol. Seriously right?
Populism: support for the concerns of ordinary people. So toxic, to the elites, that is. Insane!
No! You are supposed to do politics through catering to small vested interest groups which you have to reward with toxic retarded legislation like near 60 EOs in the first month.
How dare you create a philosophical basis that has broad appeal to the populace with no favors owed instead!
/s
"free minds" = orange man bad + China good + slurping dem ballsack
I guess āfree minds and free marketsā are only for the elite.
I used to read Reason a long time ago, but over time it seems like they got increasingly worse in various ways.
I assumed Koch money. Cato institute also went to hell.
Big tech also gives these institutions a lot of money to persuade conservatives that the tyranny of big tech is fine because it isn't coming from the government.
Mises is good. They haven't given up on their principles.
Good to know.
Remmy is the only good part about Reason.com. he isn't always right, but at least he is funny and entertaining.
Jesus CHRIST. Take a look at Cuomo's killing fields, or Whitmore the Wench, or BIDEN the fucking demented pervert and his Whore VP Heels up Harris! AOC the Green New Deal Dipshit, Gavin Newsom the Malignant Narcissist, Piss Pants Pelosi and her quest for revenge...God these people are pathetic!
Looks like a red-blooded, patriotic American to me. feelsgoodman.jpg
What's "toxic" about Nationalism and Populism? That's real "will of the people"
This poll, is toxic.
š
It gives populism a 97% approval.
Claiming that populism is toxic is literally fascism.
Ooooooooh scary populist. hahahahaha. Rent free in their heads boys... rent free every time!!!
reason magazine has been cucked for a long time. But if you go their website and view the comments, they're amazing. Most of the people commenting are pretty based, and there's a lot of very knowledgeable and interesting commentary.
It's missing a lot of EEEEEEEs in reason.
I used to subscribe to that rag back in the 90's - it seemed solid in those days considering who was running the government at the time. Before the 90's ran out - I stopped subbing - I realized along with many others that this was an inside the beltway operation just like the CATO Institute which I also used to support with donations.
I lost my political innocence completely when I watched the Tea Party be subverted and subsumed by the GOP Inc.
This is my problem with most Libertarians in a nutshell.
They either suck corporate cock
Or They are mealy-mouthed pussies that donāt get anything done because their ideology precludes it.
The An-Caps fucking killed the movement btw.
You are correct on a lot of things libertarians, but you need to get on the Trump train, or you are getting run over.
I was introduced to Libertarians by Robert Heinlein.
But when I went to go meet real Libertarians and see what their party was like...
It wasn't what I thought it would be.
It was a couple rational people surrounded by howling lunatics.
Ah, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress -- reading that one now.
It is an issue with all ideologues, they can't distinguish theory from practice and they can't compromise.
I think thatās what made Trump so effective with foreign policy. He knew when to cut a deal, or to walk out leaving them in the wind.
And in many cases it was the right decision.
I looked up the author on reason( I do like the website generally )
so hes a writer for the nyt, wapo, slate, sjw, vox, poolitico and lives in DC. 'nuff said...
God damit Reson..... š¤¦āāļø
ReasonTV has a strong case of TDS. They have legitimate objections to some of the Trump platform, but it makes them blind to the many areas where they agree.
who reads this crap magazine? I guarantee you their readership is 90% inside the Acela Corridor
What's with Libertarian "intellectuals"? lol They always go Galt whenever they perceive a threat to their precious "free markets". The irony, of course, is that their definition of "free markets" is just globalism, open borders, and state capitalism by Orwellian antonym.
If Populism is bad, why is it winning in every election it runs in worldwide?
Because humans are TOXIC
the big bad populist
Honesty, integrity, accountability?
ALL TOXIC.
Another example of why a 3rd Party is mandatory. āEverythingā remotely linked to the Republican Party or opposition to the Progressives have been infiltrated. These examples are used as āI told you soā catch phrases.
I donāt disagree w/this concept to get people involved, but donāt allow yourself to get locked in on any one way forward. Another challenge reforming the Republican Party, and there are many is the RNC. Their fundraising is for the establishment, so while your getting involved w/the precinct project plan for a new fundraising operation.
Populism is the notion that government should work in the best interest of the people.
Of course they hate it.
The vast majority of āLibertariansā that run for office are controlled opposition by the Democrats for the sole purpose of taking a few percentage points away from Republicans to elect Democrats.
Reason is such a piece of shit. At least half of the people working there voted Obama, and before the election they claimed there was no reason to vote for President Trump over Biden.
It seems like the "libertarians" over at reason are just liberals but want to still act impartial. It's why they will always be losers.
Reason is controlled opposition.
Son of a bitch! I liked Reason too. They always spoke with common sense.
It kills me to see them sell out to the SJW mindhive.
Liberty and accountability are so totally toxic
Is he LITERALLY HITLER yet?
When his book gets published they will call him LITERARY HITLER.
Strike out āDarkā and the headline is correct
The irony of calling themselves REASON.
Remember this pedes, if you do not agree with the establishment, then you are toxic. Never the other way around.
There's no such thing as 'toxic populism' you fucking retards. How' bout 'toxic oligarchy' for a headline you phony libertarian faggots. All these mainstream and semi-mainstream media rags say the SAME FUCKING THING. Diversity of opinion is non-existent.
Reason went astray chasing fame.
Populism is a requirement of election. Without it, you are just a hollow voice.
Toxic peasants getting ideas about moving up in life. Have the secret police crush them!
More reason to donate money directly to his campaign. Br ready the commies will call us Dark and Toxic
What the hell is this magazine? Who actually reads this? And why would I care?
So what's so bad about populism?
They love leftist populism because they're brainless sheep; they go wherever their drovers herd them. If it's rightist, they can't control it. Rightist revolutions are a leftist demagogue's worst nightmare. That's why we're being suppressed and persecuted right now.
I love how forcing politicians to pay attention to the population [of this country] is somehow "toxic".
This is all you need to back someone. Based as fuck.
Toxic populism? Back in the pre-woke era they just called it Democracy.
thanks...I LOVE Josh Hawley NOW!
Yes please!