What Edroso said:
Nowadays libertarian’s just a word to use when you want to say “conservative” but need an extra syllable.
We have a winner. The only real difference between Reason Magazine and National Review these days is marijuana and Nick Gillespie’s leather jacket.
joeyess
Was there ever any difference?
General Stuck
“I got mine so fuck you” is not recommended for the rubber chicken circuit.
boomshanka
reason just belongs to the deficit-spending nation-building wing of the libertarian movement, same as ayn rand.
Zam
I’ve always said that a libertarian is a republican who is embarrassed after their positions failed miserably. After Iraq fell in the polls or the economy tanked we had a lot of people insisting they were actually libertarians after supporting everything the repubs did.
AhabTRuler
@Zam: Bingo. Rounda bout 2005 and into 2006, there sure were shitload of freshly minted ‘libertarians’ who had previously been rather vocal Republicans and dedicated Bush voters. It was curious, I tells ya.
Of course, the same thing could be said about some independents and Dems, but you go to the polls with the allies you have, not the allies that you would like to have.
Objective Scrutator
The adjectives Tea Partiers use to describe themselves also lose an adjective each year.
In 2009, the term was ‘libertarian’.
In 2010, the term was ‘conservative’.
In 2011, the term will be ‘Know-Nothings’
In 2012, the term will be ‘Birchers’
In 2013, the term will be ‘pissed’.
In 2014, the Tea Party will no longer exist, because Dick Armey and the Koch brothers kill off the parties after they prove to be a waste of money.
When, exactly, did ‘libertarian’ come to mean, ‘Republican who wants to get the college vote’?
Zam
@AhabTRuler: Independent is another one of those words people use to describe themselves when they might be ashamed of their actual political leanings. It’s also used by some who want to show how fair minded they are, as well as by idiots who hear the talking heads talk about how cool all the independents are and how they are real Americans and just start saying that because it is apparently more prestigious. In reality it is only a small fraction of those who call themselves independent who vote that way (i.e they will vote for both sides depending on the candidate or situation).
J sub D
Strident opposition to both wars, ridiculing our global empire defense posture, adamant opposition to all forms of corporate welfare, support for gay marriage before it was cool, mocking the opponents of the Park 51 community center, opposing indefinite detention of terror suspects no matter who is in the Oval Office, pointing out the encroachments of liberties engendered by the recently reauthorized Patriot Act, a long tradition of covering the dual standards between cops and citizens.
All right out of the Newt Gingrich playbook.
If you don’t get, just say so.
Omnes Omnibus
@Objective Scrutator: Back when I was in law school in the early to mid 90s, it was a truism that libertarians were Republican guys who wanted to have sex with liberal girls.
shecky
These days? As far back as I can remember, “libertarian” was what Republicans used to describe themselves when they were trying to pick up a woman. And actual libertarians are so sympathetic to hippie punching, they freely look the other way.
Corner Stone
This is a shocker.
Zam
@Omnes Omnibus: Ha! I’ve got a friend like that, he likes to come hang out with a bunch of us liberals from time to time, but couldn’t get away with his anti-democratic rhetoric so he is a libertarian.
bago
Are you calling them a bunch of Koch-suckers? Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
R-Jud
@Zam:
Same here. It’s amazing how many of my Dad’s Reagan-humping chickenhawk buddies have suddenly become lifelong libertarians in the past five years.
Crusty Dem
@Zam:
Exactly. It’s conservatism without the stink of failure, combined with an absurd purity test (there is no true libertarian) and a deep, abiding love for the worst literature of all time (although calling Rand “literature” is akin to calling rotten horse ass “USDA prime”).
Socraticsilence
Just remember this is them holding back because they think Obama could be Carter, watch what happens in mid-2012 if no clear contender emerges, or even worse in fall of that year if Palin is the nominee and it dawns on them that she can’t beat Obama (denial will keep this from happening for the bulk of the horde until post- election day), I’m actually pretty scared of what might happen if Obama beats Palin (can’t figure what would be worse a rout- where it becomes clear Democracy has failed them; or a close election- where they can argue fraud)- put it this way I wouldn’t want to be a Secret Service agent at that point.
As to the Libertarian thing- this becomes most clear when a Reason writer starts backing the repeal of DOMA or DADT- the commentariat loses it over what along with Legalization is the clearest libertarian cause one can imagine.
Socraticsilence
@J sub D:
Yeah that’s libertarianism classic, but its not “leather jacket libertarianism” (for lack of a better term)- which is okay with some foriegn policy stuff, is still where you say on the Drug War (and most other civil liberties stuff), but at the very least keeps the gay marriage stuff on the down low, and is somehow blind to reality on the economic stuff.
Omnes Omnibus
So we buy K-Lo a leather blazer and a dime bag, and then what?
Zam
@Socraticsilence: If Palin is the nominee and loses we are gonna hear a lot about the evil liberal media and all that same shit. Some will say she was selected as the nominee by the media because she can’t beat Obama, others will say they are sexists or just treated her campaign unfairly because they are all evil liberals. Might even get to hear some fun ones about liberal plants.
Violet
@Zam:
It would almost be worth having her as the nominee, just to watch this. But she terrifies me and I’m not totally convinced she’ll lose. So I really don’t want to risk her being the nominee. The thought of President Palin is utterly terrifying. “Todd, that Putin guy was rude to me. Where are those nuclear codes? I’m gonna teach him a lesson!”
russell
Less than that, actually. Even good old Bill Buckley got high.
Warren Terra
@J sub D:
OK, so Libertarianism, as a formal set of ideas, proposes some very noble things. So does Communism (albeit the two aren’t very consistent), but actual existing Communism was a bit short on Workers Paradises and a bit long on grinding poverty and secret police. Similarly, however noble Theoretical Libertarianism is, any adherents are the Trots of the Libertarian world, outcast, near-voiceless, and irrelevant, right down to the seemingly inexplicable but furious debates over which school of idealistic irrelevance to follow (the Trots had Trotskyites versus Trotskyists; I forget the arcana of the Libertarian factions).
The positions you mention have nothing to do with the people who’ve claimed the term Libertarian, and if anyone asks you about Libertarian Principles you’d do well to emulate Gandhi when he was asked his opinion about Western Civilization, and to say they’d be a good idea.
Comrade Luke
@Zam:
Does this make the Blue Dogs libertarians?
clone12
For libertarians are so opposed to corporatism, they support policies that benefit corporatism.
KG
@Violet: I really can’t see her doing anything but getting trounced in a presidential general election. Though, honestly, I’m not sure I see any potential GOP nominee not getting trounced. To win, they have to flip as many as 8 states (if I did the math right on the electoral calculator). I just don’t see that happening short of the dead hooker/live boy scenario.
Violet
@KG:
If the Democratic electorate turnout is lower it would be much easier to flip the states. The Republicans hate Obama with the fire of ten billion fiery hot suns. They’ll be motivated to get him out of there. If Obama’s voters are complacent (“of course he’ll win; I don’t need to bother to vote) or discouraged (“voting for Obama didn’t change anything; why should I vote for him again?”) or unhappy with their vote (“I gave Obama a shot but if I had it to do over again, I would have voted for McCain”), while the Republican voters are enthusiastic, those states could change.
fucen tarmal
headline of the day: “ole miss tries to recover from shocker”
JAHILL10
If you thought the Obama/McCain debates were an embarrassment for the MSM trying to spin McCain victories out of thin air, imagine the horror of the spectacle after Lady Starbursts is thoroughly trounced by Obama with one lobe of his brain tied behind is back.
Corner Stone
@fucen tarmal: I think they got the reverse shocker with that 2OT loss.
Hal
@J sub D
That’s a fantastic set of beliefs, represented by a small portion of those who consider themselves libertarian.
The rest turn right around and throw their support to the Republican Party, a party adamantly in direct opposition to those beliefs.
Zam
@J sub D: What I don’t get is why none of you assholes actually push for any of that. I never hear anything but free market B.S or I get to do whatever I want but fuck you if what you do annoys me.
cmorenc
QUERY: What’s the difference between:
1) a Civil Libertarian;
2) a Libertarian.
??????
For example, Justice Ruth Bader Gisburg is a civil libertarian, Ron Paul is a libertarian, purportedly at least.
IMHO your bona fides on the “liberty” part of “libertarian” depend entirely on what it is you think most critically needs “liberating”.
Alwhite
@Violet:
You guys are worried about something that won’t happen. Palin won’t run because it would cut into her income. She will follow the Gingrich model & always talk about running. Newtie does it because it continues the con that keeps the suckers sending money. Palin is a smart enough grifter to have seen that & know that actually running will bring in the FEC and audits and all kind of accountability. Then, after she gets beaten, she will be a failure & less valuable to the rubes.
KG
@Violet: all possible, but not likely, in my mind. I was just playing with the electoral college calculator at 270towin.com, by my math, the GOP would have to flip Nevada, Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida to get to exactly 270 – while holding every other state that they won. No matter how much GOP voters hate Obama, I just don’t see that happening.
El Cid
Thank goodness I just don’t give a shit what “libertarians” believe.
Omnes Omnibus
@Alwhite: At some point, isn’t it like pumpkin futures? You have to cash in or the value plummets. Doesn’t she need to run?
Batocchio
Their pet issues differ a bit, and the right-wing funding for these two loss-leader magazines is slightly different, isn’t it? The thought of gay marriage makes K-Lo clutch her rosary, but the libertarians do love Koch.
Kolohe
Mr. Cole, I think you are confusing reason’s staff with Instapundit’s, though I am unfamilar with Reynolds’ sartorial choices
J sub D
@Socraticsilence:
How’s that stimulus working out for you? I’ll save you the response – “It just wasn’t big enough”.
Fannie and Freddie .
Impending Public Sector Pensionocalypse (get used to that term).
Libertarians are blind?
Turgid Jacobian
@J sub D: All right out of the Newt Gingrich playbook.
sure, if you add “written” after “all”
demo woman
@JAHILL10: Did you not see her debate with “can I call you Joe”? If she didn’t like a question, she spoke about “drill, baby, drill”. I just don’t remember the headlines the next day, stating that Sarah Palin is an idiot.
Violet, You’re right. She quit her job and now is the leader of the teabaggers and the repubs. I don’t underestimate her at all.
J sub D
@Hal:
FIFY.
You’ll note I didn’t list any of the libertarian ideas that Dems find odious. There’s plenty of those too.
jeffreyw
Snack of the day.
arguingwithsignposts
The problem with libertarianism is it doesn’t even work in theory.
stuckinred
@Corner Stone: Tubberville just committed the boner of the day!
El Cid
Fannie & Freddie? Really? With mortgage bundling, CDO’s, Derivatives, and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act? Talk about missing the forest for the small little sapling in front of it.
Violet
@Alwhite:
This would definitely be her smart move. But Palin is also governed by her feeling that she should be Queen. We’ve talked about this here before and as I said previously, I think she’ll be torn between the two sides of herself: the side that is in it for the money and the side that wants the power. The smart move would to be the female Newt. But she also likes power and I’m not sure she can resist the siren call of running for President. Plus she’s got people like Bill Kristol telling her she’d be perfect for the job. It will be hard to say no.
@KG:
Won’t the census affect the electoral college numbers? Some of those could be different by 2012, although I’m not sure when it would go into effect.
Looking at the states you list, I don’t think any of them are long shots. If the economy is still in the toilet, I think it could be a very close race, no matter who the GOP runs.
Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle
@Alwhite: Her appeal will drop after 2016 at the latest. Her looks are part of her appeal. At a point she becomes Kay Bailey Hutchison with out the Senate seat.
Violet
@Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle:
This is definitely a wild card issue for her. She’s always got by on her sex appeal and I’d guess she’s got very little idea how to sell herself without it. She doesn’t have a lot of good years left for selling herself that way, so if she doesn’t run now, she’ll definitely be four years further along the Kay Bailey Hutchison continuum when she does. If she tries to sell herself as a MILF when she’s even past the GILF stage, she’s going to look ridiculous.
Time isn’t her friend. She’s aged considerably in the last two years. It also seems like she’s had some sort of work done (cheek implants? lip plumping? jaw minimizing?) and it doesn’t look good on her. If you compare photos from the 2008 campaign to photos now, she’s a very different looking woman, and not in a good way. Six additional years, if she waits to run in 2016, are not going to be her friend.
tom
Glibertarians are just right wingers who like to smoke dope.
wmd
A conservative
not that libertarian
is so much better
Given the 4/5 syllable thing a haiku seemed necessary.
More entries?
Corner Stone
@Violet: I can’t remember the first or last time I thought KBH was attractive. But that’s neither here nor there.
Palin can’t wait til past 2012. It’s then or never.
I happen to think never, as it’s all just the grift.
b-psycho
@Objective Scrutator:
When, out of either ignorance or willful denial of the fact that it was a euphemism for “anarchist”, people who weren’t anarchists picked it up.
demo woman
Sarah has a following and the MSM is afraid of the Couric treatment so treats her accordingly. She quit her job and came out looking like a martyr. She finished third in the Miss Alaska contest and is still looking for the ultimate crown.
The media treats the Palin’s with kid gloves. Bristol was on the Leno show complaining about Levi wanting to be Mr. Hollywood. Bristol is going to be on Dancing With The Stars and while on Leno complained about Levi acting like Mr. Hollywood. Did Leno mention that maybe she was being hypocritical… Nah!
The family is scary and the sooner the star of the family looks like Phyllis Schlafly the better.
Edit..There is no way I can fix the italics.. I meant to highlight DWTS..
KG
@Violet: yeah, the new numbers would be in effect of 2012, but they’ve got a calculator with the new projected numbers. And individually, none of them are long shots, but all of them? It becomes a bit more of a long shot.
As an example, take flipping a coin. Each time you do it, there is a 50% chance that it will land on heads. But the odds of it landing on heads twice in a row is 25%, three times is 12.5%, four times 6.25%, and so on.
Violet
@Corner Stone:
She was a cheerleader at the University of Texas. I guess she had to be reasonably attractive to get that gig. I agree she’s a grifter and is in it for the money. But former Presidents can really rake in the big bucks and she likes power. I think she’ll be torn and don’t know which way she’ll end up going.
@demo woman:
Totally agree. The media is terrified of being called out by $arah so they don’t call her on anything. I’m encouraged by the drip-drip of unflattering articles, though. The Vanity Fair one, despite it’s off-the-record sources, is a good example. And you know that Romney, et all are gearing up for oppo research because they may have to run against her in the primaries. It could be very entertaining.
demo woman
@KG: I’m not sure that you can use that type of analogy since most of those states were red states and just recently flipped.
J sub D
@Warren Terra:
A free exchange of ideas, live and let live (Sign regulations? Protest permits? Sheesh!) and unfettered commerce pretty much sums it up.
No, I don’t want to get rid of the EPA. The demonstrated useless Department of Education could be nuked and the effect on the educations system would only be positive.
Yeah. I’d have let the big investment banks work their problems out on their own. They’d have had to hold a fire sale. Boo fucking hoo. TARP implicitly said they are “too big too fail”, a recipe for future scandals and bailouts.
I’d have the states (this is a radical concept) fund their own education and law enforcement systems.
There’s more but I’ve a Jazz festival downtown to attend.
Violet
@KG:
But wasn’t the turnout in 2008 unusually high? If you lower turnout to more typical levels, then won’t the electorate lean more Republican? Aren’t they usually more dependable voters?
demo woman
@Violet: A friend of mine recently was at supper with a former journalist who still has some connections. He mentioned that Sarah was being backed by a powerful person who helps her with her message but didn’t say who. (The journalist won a Pulitzer) It’s just a guessing game but I have to wonder if the Cheney family is involved.
Edit: This person does not take Sarah lightly and thinks she could be a powerful voice.
Violet
@demo woman:
The Cheneys? Hmm… Wouldn’t a Sarah Presidential run interfere with Mary Cheney’s run? I would suspect someone more like the Koch family.
She’s definitely got big name backers. She’s like George W. Bush, at least in his first term. She’s totally uninterested in the governing part and if she were President she’d let other people do that bit, only appearing to sign bills or give speeches. That kind of behavior goes down well with those who want the government to work only for their interests, nevermind the country.
lacp
This isn’t exactly news – several years ago, my older brother told me that when he identified himself as a ‘libertarian’ to others, most of them responded ‘are you sure you don’t mean Republican?’
Garrigus Carraig
Prez Grant says J sub D works at the EPA. Bam!
Anne Laurie
@Violet:
__
Say-rah! Palin and Willard ‘It’s My Turn’ Romney mudwrestling each other over whose theology is more un-Heartland-American(tm) is one of the few bright spots I look forward to during the 2012 Republican campaign. From all reports, neither of them believes in any religious theory more complicated than “God loves me best, so there!” but watching the two of them posture about ‘prayer warriors’ and ‘temple marriage’ for their respective bases will be extremely… Menckenian. Since Palin is the current spotlight-holder for the teabagger/authoritarian/low-middle-class-resentment wing of the Republican voting bloc, and Romney is the designated next-in-line for the bankster/upper-income/Ivy-League/glibertarian Repubs, conflict between them looks inevitable, at the moment…
demo woman
@Violet: Unfortunately, my friend could not find out more. I doubt that the White House is underestimating her potential and the last thing the nation needs is another puppet as President. Been there, done that.
DonBelacquaDelPurgatorio
Any libertarians on the board?
Please post a list of successful modern libertarian democracies.
Thank you.
Anne Laurie
@Violet:
Agree with the rest of your comment, but I don’t think either Cheney daughter is so delusional as to think about a Presidential run, at least in 2012. If anything, they’ll follow the paternal model of finding a more media-friendly puppet who’ll trade the chance to pose for the spotlights in return for ceding all policy control to the Cheneyborg. Sarah might have been a good contender for the Dubya role in 2008, but now (a) she’s gotten so much of a taste for throwing her weight around she probably wouldn’t agree, consciously, to the deal; and (b) she’s shown so much arse in the media spotlight that her value as an ‘unknown’ that voters can project whatever values they’re looking for upon has been compromised.
cs
Isn’t the National Review at least tentatively pro MJ legalization? I know Padre Buckley was since he was brave enough to try it. I don’t have the stomach to follow NR these days so I have no idea what their current position is. I remember a few pro-legalization opinions issued by them as recently as 2005-6.
There is a difference between the two. Reason is automatically contrarian, usually, to whatever government is in charge. They were pretty hostile to the excesses of the Bush administration even if they were too lazy to do anything about it beyond just writing the equivalent of harshly worded letters. They never were cheerleaders for the war or torture like NR was.
So if the GOP gets the House and / or Senate, I’d expect Reason to turn on them and will surprise the hell out of their conservative readers who only started tuning in during the Obama administration.
They will give a big cheer to the GOP shutting down the government, but the rest of it will probably be generally attacked.
So there’s a difference between the two publications. Not a huge one while the GOP is out of power, but a difference nonetheless.
Linkmeister
Heh. From PZ Myers, today:
Phoenician in a time of Romans
“Libertarian” is just another word for nothing left to think.
cleter
@Omnes Omnibus: Newt’s been milking the “will he or won’t he” thing since 1996. She could do that for at least two cycles. In fact, if she flirts with running, like Newt, but doesn’t run, her stock will actually go up if poor old Romney or some other sap gets the crap beat out of him by Obama. Then there will be four years of “oh, if only we’d nominated Sarah instead of that jackass Romney!”
cleter
@DonBelacquaDelPurgatorio: Somalia! And…and…uh…Atlantis! And Somalia! Dickensian England!
timb
@J sub D: shockingly, after making up policies, he’s now going to listen other people make up music. At least one of those “spun out of whole cloth,” wanking sessions can be called art, because his policy prescriptions would have had most of America out of work and rioting in the streets.
Since when did Libertarianism mean Herbert Hoover?
timb
@Violet: she’s Zaphod Beeblebrox
timb
@DonBelacquaDelPurgatorio: Uh, I’m not a Libertarian, but England with a feudal system and any of those banana Republics where they hold fake elections and rotate power amongst the small group of oligarchs who own everything leap to mind.
Imagine not complaining about the New Deal like most cons, or even Wilson, like the Beckians…..imagine going after Teddy Roosevelt and reading the Jungle and shrugging: “well, the market will take care of all the rat meat and feces.”
Limbaugh’s fighting a 65 year old battle he already lost, Beck’s is fighting a 90 year old battle he already lost, and Nick’s leather jacket is fighting the Roosevelt 105 years after losing the battle! What douches
Enceladus
That’s what Jim Ward on The Stephanie Miller Show keeps saying:
Libertarians are republicans who like to smoke weed.
El Cid
@Enceladus: And also “It’s at the top of our list!” and “Frankly”.
Rick Taylor
@joeyess:
__
There was. Back maybe 25 years ago, there were two strains of libertarianism; you could describe them as conservative and idealistic. Even back then, Reason represented the conservative side. They tended to alternate who got to run a candidate for President. The idealists were the ones who opposed military intervention and who felt there should be no bar to immigration to this country whatsoever.
DonBelacquaDelPurgatorio
@timb:
@cleter:
Good tries, but I was looking for …
that had flourished under libertarian government.
Of course, there are not any. Which means, as we all know, that “being a libertarian” means basically being in favor of a huge grotesque untried experiment in government, with a high probability of catastrophic failure and widespread misery, inequality and injustice …. in other words, a Republican paradise.