Get PJ Media on your Apple

PJM Lifestyle

Stealth Libertarianism?

Why the moves toward marijuana legalization and gay marriage are not sign of a progressive rise.

by
Stephen Green

Bio

January 26, 2014 - 2:00 pm

David Harsanyi thinks the American electorate might becoming more libertarian, rather than more progressive. Here’s why:

A cultural shift is not always an ideological one. Or, at least, not always the one you imagine. Our norms are always evolving. Immigration, pot legalization, same-sex marriage and “big business” are the issues that Rosenthal’s claims portend progressivism’s triumph. Yet, most of these are only incidentally progressive. Marijuana legalization or support for same-sex marriage is far more likely caused by a growing ‘live and let live’ mindset than any burst of leftist idealism. And if the ‘live and let live’ mindset starts bleeding into other area of American life — say education, health care or religious freedom– the left is in trouble.

In the end, the progressive agenda demands that you trust the state to control economic outcomes; an idea that is yet to be proven especially popular among Americans. Will it be? Who knows? But right now what does seem to be growing is skepticism towards government. Especially among the young. When Gallup asks, “What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?” it doesn’t bode well for the left that a plurality– Independents, Republicans and Democrats – say its government. Fifty-three percent of Americans claim to believe government does “too many things.” (Forty percent think its powers should be expanded.) Add to this the fact that, according to Gallup, a record number of Americans (42 percent) are rejecting partisan labels and identifying as political independents. Sounds like there’s a growing number of voters with a libertarian disposition– though most would never articulate it that way.

This certainly fits in with what I’ve been trying to tell Republicans, who could stand to benefit the most from this shift towards skepticism. If they’d take their heads out, that is. Big government on social issues combined with me-tooism on the economy isn’t a winning ticket, as we keep learning the hard way.

If you want a glimpse of a successful future for the GOP, it might look something like this.

I remain pro-choice myself, if only moderately so, but the country as a whole has been moving the other direction — even as it becomes more accommodating (socially and legally) of gays.

Anyway, Harsanyi has written a good piece — read the whole thing.

*****

Cross-posted from Vodkapundit

Stephen Green began blogging at VodkaPundit.com in early 2002, and has served as PJMedia's Denver editor since 2008. He's one of the hosts on PJTV, and one-third of PJTV's Trifecta team with Scott Ott and Bill Whittle. Steve lives with his wife and sons in the hills and woods of Monument, Colorado, where he enjoys the occasional lovely adult beverage.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Ending police raids of venues where homosexual activity is suspected is libertarianism.

Expanding government to cover homosexual relationships is not libertarianism.

Imposing restrictions on whom business owners can hire, fire or promote is not libertarianism.

Imposing restrictions on the opinions and actions of business owners is not libertarianism.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
The Millenials, or Generation Null as I call them, are the driving force for drug and sex rights. They also on balance are looking for the government to provide free stuff. When O-care finally bellies in they will demanding "Free" Single Payer. This is why the faux Libertarian, who are driven by personal autonomy rather than economic and political liberty get the legalization of drugs and abolition of marriage wrong. There is no Libertarian moment going on. If you are expecting Generation Null to break away from the Democrats in 2016 you have been spending too much time in Colorado. They will once again give their votes to the Democrats. Faux Libertarians are delusional.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Marijuana legalization .... is far more likely caused by a growing ‘live and let live’ mindset ......."

I don't believe that for a minute. Just wait until an employer refuses to hire an identified marijuana user for very valid reasons such as concerns healthcare, childcare, transportation, or construction. Then the pothead will run to the nearest attorney and/or government labor board with anything but a "live and let live" mindset.

I can hear it now ..... "As a legal marijuana user have you been denied employment opportunity? Call the law firm of Weedly, Hemply, and Stoner for a free consultation at 800 -555-TOKE!"
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (78)
All Comments   (78)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
The reality is that the people of the U.S. are owned, monitored, regulated, coerced, imprisoned, penalized, taxed and indebted, on a scale that redefines serf. Pot and homosexual marriage are a dog and pony show for the gullible who think that it portends a trend towards liberty.
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
Steven, I suspect that part of the electorate is becoming more libertarian while the Progressive part of the electorate is becoming more assertive in their power. Wherever those trends align in the same direction we get movement toward marijuana legalization and gay marriage, but I suspect that Progressives are strategically using Libertarians instead of the opposite. Progressives will likely move to tax marijuana, for example, using state power against individuals who grow marijuana for personal consumption. Progressives will also enforce anti-smoking laws against marijuana users once legalization no longer has value as a wedge issue.

Kacey Musgraves earned her Grammy Awards last night, but the lyrics of the song she performed, "Follow Your Arrow", fit more comfortably with gay marriage and marijuana legalization than her mind your own business "Trailer Song". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqtb6GPLHc0 Would have been funny if she had sang the latter or maybe "Blowin Smoke". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEsEUpk5rU8
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
"but I suspect that Progressives are strategically using Libertarians instead of the opposite."

The better question is whether the limited government Tea Partiers will succeed in using the GOP?...by defeating the RINO's the fool tdiinva insists do not exist.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
What’s driving the Pro-Pot movement?

Just more of the Statist Drive to Divide and Conquer….. …Notice how helpful the Propaganda Ministry is in this realm of late? Sympathetic Plot-lines showing up all over the place, gee I wonder why?

The Mask is off, The Radicals are in charge….and big new push is on to keep the (white kid) Stoners, stoned…while creating as many MORE of them as possible…

Because they are the perfect democrat, harmless and docile….uninterested in “real politics”, too fogged up to comprehend things like The Debt, Economics, or Foreign Affairs….permanently impaired but mildly productive (re: taxable) menial labor accustomed to living Humbly on Imagined State Handouts…just provide them their straw-men, Omnipresent “two minutes of hate” b*tch-fests about “white guys in suits” keeping all the money in every Media Event they see, while you Enslave them with The “Benevolence” of The State…

Have a toke man, we’re cool…I got your back…Its a Textbook Maneuver to anyone who’s sober enough to realize what they’re pulling.

See, The State already has The Black Vote wrapped up at +90% WITH harsh drug-laws…..so any (temporarily?) continued “War on Hard Ghetto Drugs” that continues to incarcerate THEM is of no consequence…they’ll deliver the vote AND provide make-work for The Institutions, The Courts and The Unions…

While still providing the narrative of “black man oppressed by the man” with the (inevitable) conflict and “killed in police custody” episodes that keeps (state) money flowing to the Robber Barrons of the Education/Grievance Industries …that just so happen to be set up in every Urban Democratic Cesspool of waste and fraud.

Yeah, loosening up white kid drug use is the Big-Time goal now…
Because Permanent Stoners are Perennial Democrats…
or at a minimum, non-Republican voters, for sure.

Either way, they win.

So who loses? Funny,

Statest never ask that question
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
"What’s driving the Pro-Pot movement? "

How about the fact it's drastically expensive, utterly ineffective, and abjectly unconstitutional.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
Howdy Root83
I'm pro-pot like I'm pro abortion. Which is to say I pray for a world where neither one appeals to anybody.
I want to take drug abuse out of the criminal code and keep abortion out of it, at least to 20 weeks. (There's a cognitive failure there and I know it.)
My own feeling about gay marriage is yes! My family orientation says that those who love each other should be able to celebrate it and have legal recognition and protection. My cynical side says, "If I'm stuck, you should be too." But that's my own feeling. I will defend utterly the baker and the photographer who want to stay out of it, as I would defend the church that wants to perform the ceremony and the church that refuses (locally, that would be the UUA and the Methodist, respectively).
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
Excellent article Mr. Green! As a Libertarian, I appreciate your reasoned approach to these ideas.

Speaking for myself, I value what is true and real, versus what may sound good but doesn't actually work (or even exist). Indeed this is about skepticism of supposed "authority" and "power", but with respect to facts, and in appreciation of the freedom to choose and the liberty to think for oneself. Responsible independence, to put it simply.

May you be well, good sir!
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
Good lord- "Drug testing? Why, we've always had drug testing. It doesnt affect anything."

Just like the high science of 1937 that thse laws were based on, eh?
"Well now we know" is rationalization after the fact-
THAT YOU IDIOTS BROKE THE CONSTITUTION!!
No more crying, excuses, or lies.
You expect me to save you from your Frankenstein whenI'm in a jail you built for profit?
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
Maybe people cant put their finger on it, the history has been obscured, but underneath they sense that Prohibition and it's replacement, 'drug laws', were covert funding for political gangs?

The 1961 UN Convention- the Dictators Club!- on Drugs was the Bretton Woods of the Covert economy- a corrupt political and financial superstructure beyond borders, or the laws within those borders.

'Drug policy' has acheived a death toll and corruption
to match anything communism has done.
Why? What is victory?
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
None of these things are libertarian or have anything to do with liberty or freedom.

Gay rights is all about shoving a lifestyle in the faces of people who disagree with it, and forcing them to be prostrate before the state. Its about shutting people up about morality but also about the extreme physical toll this lifestyle tends to extract from people who live it: no liberty there.

Pro-weed is also not liberty based so much as license-based. You'll notice that the pro-weed places (CO and WA) are largely upper middle class whitopeas. The most likely way a middle class white kid from there is going to get in trouble with the cops (besides DUI's) is having a bag of dope even though the stuff is readily available to lots of people. Making it legal keeps 'the good kids' from getting in trouble with the law. Don't disregard the use of weed as a kind of Soma to keep people quiet as well. Seriously, are places with lots of displaced Californians trending toward freedom?

Both gay rights and pro-weed are not based on a love of liberty, they are based on a hatred of responsibility. Big difference. Both are fine with big daddy government to enforce gay gay all the time or to provide the sustenance we need even when stoned.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
Howdy cortez
I agree that drug abuse is destructive; I don't see that I have the right to demand that you conform to my idea of a wise life. Crime committed while on drugs is a different issue.
I don't agree that "gay rights" is about shoving any lifestyle down anyone else's throat. Being homosexual, and wanting to live according to that attraction, isn't comparable to any other personal component: not race, not religion, nothing. But the key is, I can't find how homosexual activity is harmful to the participants. Some elements can be: promiscuity looks empty to me and it's prevalent among homosexuals, men more than women as I understand. But that's promiscuity as an issue and I wouldn't legislate that either.
My belief, based on a love of liberty, is that you have the right to act as you choose until you actually impede someone else's rights. Smoking weed does not impede my rights; having a same-sex partner does not. If Madeline and Marilyn call themselves married, and their pastor does too, that impedes nothing for me.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
Ending police raids of venues where homosexual activity is suspected is libertarianism.

Expanding government to cover homosexual relationships is not libertarianism.

Imposing restrictions on whom business owners can hire, fire or promote is not libertarianism.

Imposing restrictions on the opinions and actions of business owners is not libertarianism.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Expanding government to cover homosexual relationships is not libertarianism". ELIMINATING government "meddling" in ALL marriages (gay or straight)...i.e. eliminating the marriage license, is libertarian. As soon as the LGBT crowd starts to push for this I will stand beside them.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
The gist of this article would spell the death of the Republican Party FOR me. Being open to pansexualism is common to progressives and libertarians. A Prof. Jaffe, a Lincoln expert, once dubbed the liberatrians as nihilistic. I agree. The is NOTHING but the individual and his INDIVIDUAL choices out of all social context as a limiting factor. If Person Y choses fully morally unacceptable acts with social implications (e.g., homo-marriage), Person X must embace the social acceptability of a "morally unacceptable act". There are limits that cause me to differentiate...and that is the problem with the libetarians, they do not have a means of differentiating. And this means they really lack any social philosophy (e.g., the Catholic social doctrines and natural philosophy). The centralization of value on "individual" choice, so long as it does not hurt anyone, is precisely the doctrine hat HURTS my social thought, my social being, and my social values.

Here in Germany, indeed, in the EU a cultural war is going on as the "Homo-Lobby" & Co are pushing not only from same sex marriage, but gender mainstreaming. Homosexuality, indeed, pansexuality is not just to be tolerated, but "accepted" as valid. Libetarian choice is mutating into progressive force. The homo-marriage is but the momentary iinstrument for pansexualization of society >>> separation between biological sex and psychologial sex identity. In Germany this has led to a new word "verqueert", i.e. made really queer.

When it comes to smoking whatever I am not so fixed. But then no fundamental value of mine is being debunked. Mr. Green is barking up the wrong tree. He is inserting the cultural war into the conservative side through the libertarian factor and that is, I hold, value nihilism.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
"The centralization of value on 'individual' choice, so long as it does not hurt anyone, is precisely the doctrine hat HURTS my social thought, my social being, and my social values."
You should realize that you are essentially proposing theocracy, something approaching totalitarianism, but on terms you like. You are willing to hurt the social thought, the social being and the social values of homosexual people because you don't like them.
All most homosexuals demand is to be left alone. Most probably wish for acceptance. But the view you express used to end at the prison door (ask Oscar Wilde) and under the gallows, the scaffold, the stake. I'm not making that up.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
You're confused about theocracy in at least two ways, (1) it was not proposed by the person you answered and (2) the word is not the semantic equivalent of "Shut up!".

Try again.
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
Wow, you have searched the depths of your literary mind in order to insult me, not to argue. I am arguing a Natural Rights position grounded in religion, you know, "...all men are endowed BY their CREATOR". Rights and creator and endowment all interact in order to form a "normative" SOCIAL order. So, I indeed do relate the social order to a theological framework, like the American forefathers. But theocracy is a word that does not fit and I doubt you understand it. TOTALtarian is a position that the indiviudal decides right and wrong, totally universal. A society that excludes any binding normson individuals from its enforcement structure is structured to enforce one imperative and only one ans the universal glue. That is totaltarian. It also boarders on A-theism.

You accuse me with you evident knowledge of literature with Oscar Wilde. My two closest collegues were homosexuals (one just died of aids), I used to attend with my wife a gay/hetero bar, even acted as a bouncer, and I along with my sensei taught homosexuals karate, not for defense, rather for building a sense of ego. Lay off your uninformed, intellectually bankrupt insults!!! Learn that people can disagree with you without being dubbed lovers of gallows, scaffold and the stake.

You state that homosexuals ask to be left alone. AGREED, indeed, agreed more than 50 years ago. And homosexuals were then left alone. Now they are demanding social parity in, say marriage along with some sort of affirmative action. I draw the line here re the natural law society I affirm. In Germany there is an attempt to teach children from grade K on that, in the name of fairness to homosexuals, children (against the will of their parents) must come to ACCEPT, not tolerate, homosexuality, indeed, PANsexuality (anything sexual goes), including some mutual touching. Prepuberty sex is being inculcated.

Any sexual behavior that is "normatively" accepted, yet destroys the society is objectionable. Here in Germany, pansexualism is so great that a German woman produces 1.36 children, AND that, my critic, is the death of a society. The Germans, indeed, the Europeans, indeed, now Americans are dying out!!!! Homosexuality as marriage is the symbolic affirmation of the death of a society. It is barren of sociality. Deny if you can.

So, you see that you radically misunderstood me, did not argue with me, insulted me and made a fool of yourself. Nevertheless, I am willing to accept your apology.
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Wow, you have searched the depths of your literary mind in order to insult me, not to argue."

Well really that's all you're fit for. You're a buffoon.

"TOTALtarian is a position that the indiviudal decides right and wrong, totally universal"

No dummy. Totalitarian is the position that one individual decides for all other individuals. Libertarian is the position that you can swing your fist as long as aren't hitting a nose--and it is just that attitude towards individual liberty which is the rasion d'etre of the Revolution of 1775, the culturally ingrained ignoring of those who presume to call themselves your better when they presume to rule you. And frankly, shooting them dead when they presume too much.

"I am arguing a Natural Rights position grounded in religion"

Like I said, you are a buffoon. You aren't just arguing with regard to any religion, but a specific one--and it doesn't matter which one. Your religious "natural rights" dissolve into chaos and oppression as soon as there is any heterodoxy about what religious doctrine is correct, and there are always differing ideas about what is correct.

The Thirty Years War is not a time period to emulate, you idiot. Many early immigrants to America came to get away from just your stripe of idiocy.
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
Howdy ProfIW
You're still demanding the right to decide what harmless activities of other people will be legal or illegal. I'm still saying that's a totalitarian approach.
Side note: Europe's low birth rates do not represent the influence of homosexuality on heterosexual couples. I'd say it stems from a stifling, paternal government and a society that has come to see having children as an indulgence rather than as a life-affirming action.
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
Very little is more amusing and disgusting to me than someone who at heart, as you do, thinks everyone should lick someone elses' boots. Someone who thinks society defines right and wrong, and not the individual conscience--your views are nihilistic, and if you describe them correctly, so are Jaffe's. If as you prefer a society pretends everyone defines right and wrong, you obscure what is true--which is that society can merely define what it punishes--and you discover that no one is defining right and wrong, and you have nothing but base majoritarianism for your "morality".

That is the Endarkenment, Rousseau's general will. Your view is the abandonment of the American Revolution, the abnegation of 1775.

America is libertarian at the level of the national constitution and jurisdiction, and in vehemently insisting each person has the right to sell their labor, so was Lincoln.

You own yourself.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
Tommy, boy, read my answer above to Geoff. There is ignorance that one can excuse. You is not of that type. Do not throw Rousseau's "general will" at me, nor replace it with the "individual will". Learn some philosophy, sociology, intellectual history and, until obtained, do not expose yourself by insulting. The American "Declaration of Independence" starts with the "... endowed by their Creator" --theology, theology and more theology. No justified revoluton without the endowment and that implies that there are values beyond the secular order that must be enacted in said order, or justification of revolution is absent.

I bet you do not know much about the history of "nihilism". Right?
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
I read it, you are as full of twaddle as before.

" Do not throw Rousseau's "general will" at me, nor replace it with the "individual will"

Why not? Because you have no counterpoint? I'm not that generous to fools.

"No justified revoluton without the endowment"

So what? It is what is endowed, and not how it was endowed or by who or what, which justifies the Revolution of 1775. There is no theocracy justified by that revolution, or for that matter, by so much as one word ever said to have been said by Christ. No good can come trying to use Caesar in Christ's place.

"I bet you do not know much about the history of "nihilism". Right?"

Not as much as I'd like, but unlike the crap you've put up here, what I know things that are real.

Purely as a coincidence, I learned today of the opinion of Hanah Arendt towards the American Revolution:

"She goes against a common view of both Marxist and leftist* views when she argues that France, while well studied and often emulated, was a disaster and that the largely ignored American Revolution was a success. The turning point in the French Revolution occurred when the leaders rejected their goals of freedom in order to focus on compassion for the masses. In America, the Founding Fathers never betray the goal of Constitutio Libertatis."

*I cannot credit the notion there is any daylight between Marxist and Leftist views.

The American Founding was libertarian, sorry to burst your bubble. Libertarianism is all that is conservative in America.

You, as seen in your trend to theocracy, are the sort of fool I wrote of here:

http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/01/26/stealth-libertarianism/?show-at-comment=468888#comment-468888

You just want to use a cross instead of a hammer and sickle, and you are really sick enough to think that makes all the difference. And in the comment I link to, I mean money in the very generic sense of whatever has currency, for example, legitimacy.
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
O.k., throw your individual will at me. I throw mine back. Why is yours better than mine? Islam is a kind of theoracy. The founders of the US were religious, from Catholics and Protestants to deists. They were not atheists. Theology hovers in the background as the "endowing" act of God. That is not theocracy! Go back to the Declaration of Independence and its "theocratic" justification of revoluton. You, I , all of us, are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. Fine, what "rights"? Who determines? YOUR individual will? If so, you can abbregate my "endowment", no? That is nihilism. My individual will? That is nihilism. When all the individual wills clash, society dies and tryanny is the only source of organization. A tyrannt is a person who has realized his INDIVIDUAL will. If the individual will has no norms above it, it is endowed with no rights, just the power to enact its arbitrary decisions.

Again, lay off the insults! It weakens your argument. You know things "that are real". Really? Let us turn to the history of conceptualizations of "reality". I suspect ignorance here. Your proclamation with just an underhanded way of putting me down. I apologize for entering into a discussion with you. I should have known betrer.
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
You really think it should be up to the individual conscience that determines right and wrong?
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
It has to be, or "just following orders" is all that can be right, and nevermind what those orders are or why/how they were generated.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
Conscience does not determine right and wrong. Conscience helps one recognize right and wrong.

A lot of today's fashionable libertarianism attempts to blank out recognition of right and wrong. You fit the profile, Tom.
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
And if your individual conscience says that it is right to use the money in your employees 401K program to buy a yacht, then bankrupt the program? Or to steal an election, because, well, your cause is holy? Or to molest a child?

How, given a belief in the primacy of the individual conscience in determining morality, can one say any of those things is wrong?
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
Don't know where you get the idea fraud and assault aren't crimes, or that it's ink on paper that make them crimes. You must be one of those rare, amoral, sociopathic types.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
LOL. What determines what a crime is?

What if a law was passed making looting pension plans or stealing elections legal or molesting children? Are you saying those things would then become moral? You seem to be.

Smoking marijuana is still a crime in most places. Are marijuana smokers in those places immoral.

If a sodomy law was passed and used to prosecute and destroy two people who want to be left alone would that make it moral?

31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
"What determines what a crime?"

A fist has to hit a nose before the question can come up, and then only if it is swung purposely or negligently. This isn't really hard, except to the sociopaths.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
Really? Says what? Individual conscience? Or maybe it's just your individual conscience. Are you trying to impose your own "individual conscience" on everybody? That's kind of oppressive, isn't it?

You might think these questions are frivolous but millions of people have been killed and oppressed by people following their "individual conscience."

The notion that "individual conscience" can be the final arbitrator of morality is foolish to the point where it is indefensibly vile.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Are you trying to impose your own "individual conscience" on everybody?"

Exactly not. Funny how not interfering with someone's rights in no way resembles doing the opposite.

"That's kind of oppressive, isn't it?"

If you're freedom phobic, maybe. Sounds like a personal issue though.

"You might think these questions are frivolous but millions of people have been killed and oppressed by people following their "individual conscience.""

While violating those victims rights, they were swinging their fists into other people's nose.

"The notion that "individual conscience" can be the final arbitrator of morality is foolish to the point where it is indefensibly vile. "

On the contrary, the people committing those crimes fell back on the excuse that they were just following orders, not obeying their consciences. Even most of them weren't sociopaths, they knew what they were doing was wrong, and that they had failed to make it worth even in their own eyes by winning.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
The Millenials, or Generation Null as I call them, are the driving force for drug and sex rights. They also on balance are looking for the government to provide free stuff. When O-care finally bellies in they will demanding "Free" Single Payer. This is why the faux Libertarian, who are driven by personal autonomy rather than economic and political liberty get the legalization of drugs and abolition of marriage wrong. There is no Libertarian moment going on. If you are expecting Generation Null to break away from the Democrats in 2016 you have been spending too much time in Colorado. They will once again give their votes to the Democrats. Faux Libertarians are delusional.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
As one of the Millenials who has seen the light and realized the simple fact that there's no such thing as a free lunch I have to sadly concur with your analysis.

We are so boned.
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Faux Libertarians are delusional."--tdiinva

Why should they act differently from the Libertarians they're passing as?
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All