Independents Day (Matt Welch & Nick Gillespie)

[Bloggingheads]

[sugarkang]

Get ready for tons of whining or tumbleweeds.

[graz]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

Get ready for tons of whining or tumbleweeds.

Originally Posted by sugarkang

1. There is no libertarian principle to require legislators to justify laws. Legislators can pass whatever they want provided they have enough votes.

2. You probably misunderstood what I said about government entities having to justify their existence. That's my opinion on what should happen, but probably won't happen. That's not libertarian, per se. That's just me.

3. Muslims have freedom of religion, period. They have that freedom no more and no less than any other religious followers in our country. If you are alleging some kind of hypocrisy on my part, I'd suggest you try again. I've already mentioned it in another post that bans on Sharia law are likely a pretext to justify Islamophobia. However, I tend to keep my mouth shut about things that I don't know about. But in case I wasn't fucking clear, Muslims who are U.S. citizens deserve all the rights and protections that citizenship affords them. No exceptions.

I'm going to decrease my responses to these troll attempts. There's no reason to have an exchange with unreasonable people. I've demonstrated quite clearly that I'm able to have civil discussions with people on all sides of our political spectrum. If there are some of you have been unable to do so with me, well, at least we know it has nothing to do with ideology. And if you're sure that it's because I'm an insufferable prick, I'm pretty okay with that.

Now, I have shit to do.

...

[Hume's Bastard]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

Get ready for tons of whining or tumbleweeds.

No. But, I do have some questions.
1. Speaking of the diavlog as a whole, is this site now devoting itself fully to book promotion and woolly thinking? I realize requiring every interlocutor actually to be a user of social media might marginalize nearly all of academia and anyone over a certain age, but, come on, it's in the URL - blogging.
Speaking of queer marriage:

2. Why is the use of "great" as in "great moment" (is it a prerequisite to be a market fundi to sound like a prig?) any more legit than "great" in "great man"? I don't think it's a victory for me. I don't think "rights" are necessarily furthered or advanced at all. I think it's a victory for certain interest groups that were cobbled together into a legislative majority. Those groups include religious organizations that feared litigation and Republicans whom everyone now knows have gay children. It's a victory for people who want to be normal citizens who happen to be gay, and who want similar legal "rights" to others. It's a very conservative accomplishment.

So, I don't understand how these two market fundis can call it great and then trash the notion of state-sanctioned marriage. How big or small does the state have to be before the non-fundamentalist and non-cult members among us can understand what the optimal state should be? And, how much will that normative appeal to "rights" conflict with and oppress any actual queer lifestyle?

Terrible. Terrible. TERRIBLE! If no blog, then no talk, no plugging!

[Diane1976]

Libertarian victory on same-sex marriage? Are these the same people that tend to form political alliances with conservatives, including social conservatives in some false belief that they will spend less and make government smaller? Like the present Canadian government headed by a "libertarian" in league with the religious right, which would probably like to roll back the legalization of same-sex marriage if they could figure out some sneaky way of doing it? Good Grief!

A number of countries have recognized same sex marriage and I think that's mostly thanks to liberal/left tendencies, not libertarians. See Wikipedia on same-sex marriage in various countries.

[Diane1976]

The Internet and Starbucks work better than ensuring a level of health care, education and old age security for the entire population, so that proves government is bad and all we need to do is get rid of it. Sure.

[TwinSwords]

Speaking of wingnuts and others disconnected from reality, this is hilarious:

World Net Daily Writers Sue Esquire For $120 Million Over Birther Parody

At least we can laugh while they wreck our world.

[jimM47]

Originally Posted by Hume's Bastard

I realize requiring every interlocutor actually to be a user of social media might marginalize nearly all of academia and anyone over a certain age, but, come on, it's in the URL - blogging . . . .If no blog, then no talk, no plugging!

Hit & Run Blog : Matt Welch; Nick Gillespie.

[Hume's Bastard]

Here's a plug any market fundamentalist cult member would appreciate!

Any book by The Jacket must be read, reverenced and obeyed, yea, even as if the words came directly from the gills of the Aqua-Buddah.

Free minds, indeed!

[Hume's Bastard]

Originally Posted by jimM47

Hit & Run Blog : Matt Welch; Nick Gillespie.

I said "blog", not a magazine column!

[graz]

Originally Posted by Diane1976

The Internet and Starbucks work better than ensuring a level of health care, education and old age security for the entire population, so that proves government is bad and all we need to do is get rid of it. Sure.

That's why they call it GLIB-ertarianism.
Don't fret though, the fix is in with all the Koch money flowing like soda pop over a root beer float. Free markets, free minds, for the enrichment of the overlords.

[chiwhisoxx]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

Speaking of wingnuts and others disconnected from reality, this is hilarious:

World Net Daily Writers Sue Esquire For $120 Million Over Birther Parody

At least we can laugh while they wreck our world.

what the hell does this have to do with the diavlog?

[chiwhisoxx]

Originally Posted by Hume's Bastard

I said "blog", not a magazine column!

um, what part of "hit and run blog" did you miss? i'm guessing it was the "blog" part.

[chiwhisoxx]

I eagerly await hearing Matt Welch pretend like libertarians are an important swing voting constituency.

[jimM47]

Two posts a day is a magazine column?

[graz]

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx

what the hell does this have to do with the diavlog?

It's a subtle extrapolation of the Nozickian critique of short-shorts vs. long-shorts in NBA history.

[Hume's Bastard]

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx

um, what part of "hit and run blog" did you miss? i'm guessing it was the "blog" part.

I think you missed the magazine part. Once, back in the ol'days, I maintained a website sustained by code alone. I didn't shill for donors or have the services of drones to refresh the site. If you think pasting "blog" to a magazine column is all one needs to be a "blogger", then perhaps you should just stick to hiding behind paywalls. It's not as if the Internet" were ever free, but I would never mistake a business for a medium.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by graz

It's a subtle extrapolation of the Nozickian critique of short-shorts vs. long-shorts in NBA history.

I'm glad someone is paying attention!

[Hume's Bastard]

Originally Posted by jimM47

Two posts a day is a magazine column?

How much does "someone" get paid for verbiage at that business front?

[chiwhisoxx]

Originally Posted by graz

It's a subtle extrapolation of the Nozickian critique of short-shorts vs. long-shorts in NBA history.

there's that old saying, "those who can't do, teach". I think "those who don't know, mock" seems appropriate here.

[Hume's Bastard]

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx

there's that old saying, "those who can't do, teach". I think "those who don't know, mock" seems appropriate here.

It's more like: those who actually do and know, mock!

[jimM47]

Originally Posted by Hume's Bastard

How much does "someone" get paid for verbiage at that business front?

No idea. Something greater than zero, I imagine. Does that have something to do with whether a series of short, discreet, frequent, reverse-chronologically arranged writings constitutes a blog?

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx

I eagerly await hearing Matt Welch pretend like libertarians are an important swing voting constituency.

Yep. Personally, I'm of the opinion that it's a sign of political maturity when you realize that, no matter who you are, people who think just like you do are actually a very small minority of the electorate.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by jimM47

Hit & Run Blog : Matt Welch; Nick Gillespie.

Jim! Good to see you back in the forum. Don't tell me you have an actual job or something that's been keeping you away lately.

[jimM47]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

Jim! Good to see you back in the forum. Don't tell me you have an actual job or something that's been keeping you away lately.

A fake job, actually, but it mostly keeps me away.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by Hume's Bastard

I said "blog", not a magazine column!

Son of David,

It's not really fair to measure old metrics against the realities of today. Where's Ezra Klein? Where's Will Wilkinson? You have to admit that blogging isn't what it used to be; bloggers have been co-opted by the MSM or Lame-stream Media, depending on whichever team you're on.

So, it's more that "bloggingheads" is the outdated name amidst a reality that has evolved. I mean you can complain all day about people using "literally" when they mean "figuratively," but, does anyone really care besides pedantic grammarians? Or you can keep on complaining. At least, you'll have that futility of effort thing in common with libertarians.

[look]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

Son of David,

It's not really fair to measure old metrics against the realities of today. Where's Ezra Klein? Where's Will Wilkinson? You have to admit that blogging isn't what it used to be; bloggers have been co-opted by the MSM or Lame-stream Media, depending on whichever team you're on.

So, it's more that "bloggingheads" is the outdated name amidst a reality that has evolved. I mean you can complain all day about people using "literally" when they mean "figuratively," but, does anyone really care besides pedantic grammarians? Or you can keep on complaining. At least, you'll have that futility of effort thing in common with libertarians.

Great points. I hadn't watched MSNBC in ages; when I watched Matthews today, McArdle was on. She did pretty good.

[Hume's Bastard]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

Son of David,

It's not really fair to measure old metrics against the realities of today. Where's Ezra Klein? Where's Will Wilkinson? You have to admit that blogging isn't what it used to be; bloggers have been co-opted by the MSM or Lame-stream Media, depending on whichever team you're on.

So, it's more that "bloggingheads" is the outdated name amidst a reality that has evolved. I mean you can complain all day about people using "literally" when they mean "figuratively," but, does anyone really care besides pedantic grammarians? Or you can keep on complaining. At least, you'll have that futility of effort thing in common with libertarians.

Well, I'm glad you know, like "words", and how to use them. But, I will stick up for "bloggers" struggling for a medium, like Reason, that will allow them to pay the bills and express themselves. I don't call that a blog, and I resent any business that uses the term. It's unnecessary. We all know the writer is an employee. And, I'm not callous - props to Wilkinson et al for doing good work. I've also swapped emails with Phil Korsnes about getting prime-quality East Asian expat bloggers on diavlogs - to no apparent profit for anyone. Our current crop of shills haven't obliged, that's for sure, and that's with the advantage of getting paid for their day jobs and presumably having time to moonlight. These shills keep quality commentators with new and interesting perspectives from their 60 minutes of fame - repeatedly!

[chamblee54]

Police violence against gays is NOT "totally unimaginable" today.
At the eagle in Atlanta, police made patrons lay on broken glass covered floors for over an hour. The raid commander was quoted ..."When asked if he thinks “that the gay community is more violent than other citizen groups” Brock replied: “My experience, yes. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, when they’re — when they get mad, they get really mad.”
There was also an incident in a Texas bar recently where a patron was sent to the hospital with a fractured skull.
chamblee54

[chamblee54]

If only it was our government which was ignoring the Soviet activity in Afghanistan.
The rebels that we armed to fight our proxy war against the Russkies later morphed into the taliban and al queda.
Meanwhile, Matt gets down.
On the other hand, this diavlog was good background noise for producing a rainbow font tribute to Dorothy Parker.
chamblee54

[chiwhisoxx]

Ruh roh: libertarian hipster irony alert, Nick Gillespie's shirt.

[Don Zeko]

I feel like I'm back in middle school.

[ginger baker]

Libertarian victory on same-sex marriage?...A number of countries have recognized same sex marriage and I think that's mostly thanks to liberal/left tendencies, not libertarians.

Right on! Marriage is a state institution, its granted, recognized, and protected by the state, like private property....and in this particular context of gay marriage, the progressive state! But leave it to Joey Ramone-with-a-bad-Ayn-Rand-haircut to spin it otherwise...And listen to him drone on about the Evils of the Political Realm while Matt pats him on the back...blah, blah, blah....

[chiwhisoxx]

I found this diavlog to be pretty irritating in a lot of ways. We probably didn't need the five minute tangent about how the realization of the libertarian dream involves people craving and acquiring fuchsia colored fruit and or vegetables. I realize it was supposed to be an illustrative example, but we could probably aim a little higher than that. They also seem to misunderstand the definition of "tribal". There are few things less annoying than a libertarian proudly puffing out his chest and loudly declaring that he's free from the muck of petty partisanship, and is thus able to see and think much more clearly than the rest of us. Just because your political party is much smaller, doesn't mean you don't have tribal allegiances to it. I don't see a lot of pieces at Cato or Reason decrying Ron Paul's disgusting record on racism and the KKK. They also constantly over inflate the importance of both libertarian voters and the influence people like Paul and Ron Johnson have on the national debate. That seems awfully tribal to me. Say what you will about liberals and conservatives, but I like that they often have intra-ideology squabbles. That seems to rarely, if ever (I actually can't think of a single example off the top of my head) be the case with libertarians.

And then perhaps the biggest problem of them all: Gillespie says early on a large portion of the impetus for this book was a growing number of people identifying themselves as "independents". There seems to be a missing link in the chain of assumptions here: just because more people are identifying as independent, does NOT mean more people are becoming "libertarian", even loosely defined. It's amazing how people who complain about the blinkered worldview of those stuck in the morass of partisan politics seem to have the incredibly myopic view that everyone who is not a Republican or a Democrat is a libertarian. If anyone should realize that strict ideological categories often fall apart when looking at real people, it would libertarians! Just a random, theoretical and potential example of one these independent voters: A guy/gal who loves his entitlements, doesn't want you to touch them, he/she is also deeply religious and quite culturally and socially conservative, wants protectionism and more border control, and wants to tax the rich more. I wouldn't consider that to be a very libertarian person, but according to this book, they're part of the declaration/revolution/other-words-ending-in-tion of independents! On one hand, I shouldn't judge a book I haven't read too harshly; on the other hand, I'm fairly certain the inevitable conclusion of the book is that a third, independent political party along libertarian lines is entirely viable and possibly likely in the near future. I wonder if Matt and Nick actually believe this; I think they'd have to actually be quite self-deluded if they did. But maybe they did drink their own wish-fulfillment kool-aid. In that case, I hope I can meet them in real life so I can wager large sums of money that libertarians/independents/an independent party/libertarian party/ron paul/ron paul acolytes/the unholy union of ross perot and ron paul's animated corpses as an uber ticket won't be a relevant force in national politics by say, 2030.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx

And then perhaps the biggest problem of them all: Gillespie says early on a large portion of the impetus for this book was a growing number of people identifying themselves as "independents". There seems to be a missing link in the chain of assumptions here: just because more people are identifying as independent, does NOT mean more people are becoming "libertarian", even loosely defined. It's amazing how people who complain about the blinkered worldview of those stuck in the morass of partisan politics seem to have the incredibly myopic view that everyone who is not a Republican or a Democrat is a libertarian. If anyone should realize that strict ideological categories often fall apart when looking at real people, it would libertarians! Just a random, theoretical and potential example of one these independent voters: A guy/gal who loves his entitlements, doesn't want you to touch them, he/she is also deeply religious and quite culturally and socially conservative, wants protectionism and more border control, and wants to tax the rich more. I wouldn't consider that to be a very libertarian person, but according to this book, they're part of the declaration/revolution/other-words-ending-in-tion of independents! On one hand, I shouldn't judge a book I haven't read too harshly; on the other hand, I'm fairly certain the inevitable conclusion of the book is that a third, independent political party along libertarian lines is entirely viable and possibly likely in the near future. I wonder if Matt and Nick actually believe this; I think they'd have to actually be quite self-deluded if they did. But maybe they did drink their own wish-fulfillment kool-aid. In that case, I hope I can meet them in real life so I can wager large sums of money that libertarians/independents/an independent party/libertarian party/ron paul/ron paul acolytes/the unholy union of ross perot and ron paul's animated corpses as an uber ticket won't be a relevant force in national politics by say, 2030.

Good post. I'd add that the growing number of people "identifying themselves" as independents is just that: a growing number of people declining to accept the label of a political party while still voting like partisans. The number of actual independents that don't display a partisan-like strong preference for one party or the other has been and continues to be extremely small.

[Hume's Bastard]

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx

I found this diavlog to be pretty irritating in a lot of ways. We probably didn't need the five minute tangent about how the realization of the libertarian dream involves people craving and acquiring fuchsia colored fruit and or vegetables. I realize it was supposed to be an illustrative example, but we could probably aim a little higher than that. They also seem to misunderstand the definition of "tribal". There are few things less annoying than a libertarian proudly puffing out his chest and loudly declaring that he's free from the muck of petty partisanship, and is thus able to see and think much more clearly than the rest of us. Just because your political party is much smaller, doesn't mean you don't have tribal allegiances to it. I don't see a lot of pieces at Cato or Reason decrying Ron Paul's disgusting record on racism and the KKK. They also constantly over inflate the importance of both libertarian voters and the influence people like Paul and Ron Johnson have on the national debate. That seems awfully tribal to me. Say what you will about liberals and conservatives, but I like that they often have intra-ideology squabbles. That seems to rarely, if ever (I actually can't think of a single example off the top of my head) be the case with libertarians.

And then perhaps the biggest problem of them all: Gillespie says early on a large portion of the impetus for this book was a growing number of people identifying themselves as "independents". There seems to be a missing link in the chain of assumptions here: just because more people are identifying as independent, does NOT mean more people are becoming "libertarian", even loosely defined. It's amazing how people who complain about the blinkered worldview of those stuck in the morass of partisan politics seem to have the incredibly myopic view that everyone who is not a Republican or a Democrat is a libertarian. If anyone should realize that strict ideological categories often fall apart when looking at real people, it would libertarians! Just a random, theoretical and potential example of one these independent voters: A guy/gal who loves his entitlements, doesn't want you to touch them, he/she is also deeply religious and quite culturally and socially conservative, wants protectionism and more border control, and wants to tax the rich more. I wouldn't consider that to be a very libertarian person, but according to this book, they're part of the declaration/revolution/other-words-ending-in-tion of independents! On one hand, I shouldn't judge a book I haven't read too harshly; on the other hand, I'm fairly certain the inevitable conclusion of the book is that a third, independent political party along libertarian lines is entirely viable and possibly likely in the near future. I wonder if Matt and Nick actually believe this; I think they'd have to actually be quite self-deluded if they did. But maybe they did drink their own wish-fulfillment kool-aid. In that case, I hope I can meet them in real life so I can wager large sums of money that libertarians/independents/an independent party/libertarian party/ron paul/ron paul acolytes/the unholy union of ross perot and ron paul's animated corpses as an uber ticket won't be a relevant force in national politics by say, 2030.

Good points. One point, though, you fail to mention is, that we don't need to double down on one perspective. It's supposed to be a debate, not an echo chamber. At least Welch and Gillespie weren't sitting across the hal from each other at separate terminals, or even sharing the same webcam. I would also suggest that most people who become independents do so for strategic reasons, to punish one or both parties for either certain positions, the lack of a certain plank, or maybe as opposition to a candidate. I don't think independents are espousing a particular ideology that the Libertarians could quantify, in order to profit by. The cool, indie, t-shirt-clad, unshaven pose Welch and Gillespie seemed to adopt was a silly attempt to appeal superfically to "tribes" of people who would probably resist any attempt to herd them into a particular party or ideology.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx

... irritating ... definition of "tribal"

Understood on the first point and totally true on the second. Call out received, processed and accepted.

I don't see a lot of pieces at Cato or Reason decrying Ron Paul's disgusting record on racism and the KKK.

Brink Lindsey, while at Cato, definitely did denounce the racist newsletters. Still, I don't think it's justified to crucify a man for what he didn't do, but allowed to happen under his newsletter some 20+ years ago? So, in the context of the times, if you really want to hold the position that he's an asshole, I'm cool with that. But, I also think there's a statute of limitations on shit behavior. If it happened really far in the past and it's unlikely to happen now, I think you gotta let it go. That's just me. Considering how long he's been a politician, I find it remarkable how little dirt there is to find on him.

Say what you will about liberals and conservatives, but I like that they often have intra-ideology squabbles. That seems to rarely, if ever (I actually can't think of a single example off the top of my head) be the case with libertarians.

Here's where I think you're not being fair. I'm all for calling out, but libertarians, by their very nature and philosophy, are tolerant. So, as long as one is not trying to impose a morality system on the other, there's peace. I'd say this is one of our greatest strengths. Then, there's two real-life examples of libertarians engaged in intra-ideology squabbles: Brink Lindsey and Will Wilkinson. Not with each other, but with Cato. We didn't forget about that, did we? Then there's the Bleeding Heart Libertarians that seem okay with a bit more intervention than what we're used to hearing. I'd probably lump myself in with them.

It's amazing how people who complain about the blinkered worldview of those stuck in the morass of partisan politics seem to have the incredibly myopic view that everyone who is not a Republican or a Democrat is a libertarian.

Agreed.

I'm fairly certain the inevitable conclusion of the book is that a third, independent political party along libertarian lines is entirely viable and possibly likely in the near future. I wonder if Matt and Nick actually believe this; I think they'd have to actually be quite self-deluded if they did.

Somehow, I doubt they think this. It sounded more like they're trying to upend the partisan system by going for single issue coalitions. It sounds plausible and doable, but I also have not read the book.

[Florian]

Originally Posted by Diane1976

The Internet and Starbucks work better than ensuring a level of health care, education and old age security for the entire population, so that proves government is bad and all we need to do is get rid of it. Sure.

Your irony is appropriate. I clicked off at this point in the diavlog (perhaps I will click on again later to see if it improves). The Internet has certainly changed the way of life of millions for better (and for worse), and Starbucks has certainly improved the quality of American coffee, but to suggest that because such innovations are the creations of the market the state should hand over education, health care and social security to the market......well, if ever there was a non-sequitur, there it is.

[operative]

Originally Posted by Florian

Your irony is appropriate. I clicked off at this point in the diavlog (perhaps I will click on again later to see if it improves). The Internet has certainly changed the way of life of millions for better (and for worse), and Starbucks has certainly improved the quality of American coffee, but to suggest that because such innovations are the creations of the market the state should hand over education, health care and social security to the market......well, if ever there was a non-sequitur, there it is.

Privatized retirement works fine in Chile, and what's so different about education? The point is that markets work. Trying to differentiate some markets from other markets just makes no sense.

[Freddie]

Vouchers don't work. Vouchers don't work. This question has been asked and answered empirically.