Do you think Libertarian Jacob Sullum would let his kids see Janet Jackson’s boob if it had been her LEFT boob rather than her RIGHT boob?

Hmmm. I dunno. Perhaps some libertarians will drop by to explain things from their perspective.

That was a pretty tame Mike S. Adams column. He didn’t brag about his guns even once. Come on, Mike, tell us the one about that one time you scared that liberal.

Hmmm. I dunno. Perhaps some libertarians will drop by to explain things from their perspective.

Oh, please no, I can’t think of anything worse than getting into a “discussion” with a Randroid.

Have mercy on my poor head, I end up pounding it against the nearest hard surface when engaging a Randroid, I’m too old for that.

The beautiful irony of the right-wing Libertarian mindset is that you end up believing that there’s nothing government can do to make someone responsible, but the power of government to encourage people to be irresponsible (e.g. welfare causes people to have 30 kids) is limitless.

It’s a perfect shitshorm of illogic.

Pretty boring Townhall, except for Dr. Mike’s bombshell, the biggest bombshell since it was revealed that Amelie Tautou is the direct descendant of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene, that [drumroll please]:

Joseph Smith was a polygamist

Who knew? I hope Mormans don’t commit mass suicide over this. Unfortunately, the good doctor completely blows his credibility by saying, “some Mormons have decided that Joseph Smith is a God.” No, they do not.

I have to admit, Adams doing a Mormon version of the right-wing “Muhammed ate babies” schtick is comic gold.

Maybe I’m missing something, but aren’t many, if not most, Mormons typically right-wing?

Hee hee. I do love the Two-Minute Townhall. Thanks, Travis!

Yeah, Utah was IIRC either the strongest or second-strongest Dubya state and has some of the dumbestmost stringent alcohol laws of any state in the US.

I’m still trying to figure out the meaning of the scare quotes around “their” and “they” in the first paragraph of Dr. Mike’s column.

“The beautiful irony of the right-wing Libertarian mindset is that you end up believing that there’s nothing government can do to make someone responsible, but the power of government to encourage people to be irresponsible (e.g. welfare causes people to have 30 kids) is limitless.”

Uh…wherever did you get that first part from? Any small government libertarian believes in a judicial system.

Kudos, Travis, for getting Sullum right this time around. Only problem is, I don’t see the funny. But then, maybe I’m just a humorless Randroid.

Come on, when you’re talking about traditional, Bible-based marriage, what would fit that bill better than polygamy? You gotta love the comments on that one, though: “hey, Mormoni, you’re going to hell!” “Nuh uh, we’re right and you’re wrong!” Scintillating.

The problem, Matt, is that nothing is Objectively funny…

From Blankley:

“To see the gleam in the eyes of reporters happily cackling on about “other possible incidents” — about which they know not whether they even exist — is to be filled with a fury that we have a system of journalism that permits people with such mentalities to poison the minds of the world with their malice.”

Is this the best sentence ever constructed in a Townhall blog, or the best sentence in all of humanity’s literary endeavors? I vote the former, but I’m willing to change my mind.

no offense Matt T., but part of the reason it is funny is because it is so stupid. not that you are stupid for not understanding how stupid it is.

let me put it another way. Do liberals think that the government should force children to watch a show about Janet Jackson’s boob? Do conservatives? how about forbidding children from watching it (maybe through the use of that judicial system that you support?)?

no, of course they don’t. There fore using it as an example to say something about “libertarianism” is stupid, and wastes everyone’s time.

Uh…wherever did you get that first part from? Any small government libertarian believes in a judicial system.

And that doesn’t have fuck all to do with what I’m talking about. I’m talking about things like sin taxes, that many Libertarians strongly oppose. They believe that it’s impossible to use economic incentives to get people to change their behavior to be more responsible, but they also believe that when the government creates welfare programs, it magically makes millions of people act irresponsible in order to take advantage of them. It’s the pulsating core of idiocy that defines every right-wing Libertarian.

And for the record, I actually do consider myself a libertarian. Except that I also believe that Glenn Greenwald is a real liberatarian, while John Stossel is simply a moron.

thehim–

“And that doesn’t have fuck all to do with what I’m talking about. I’m talking about things like sin taxes, that many Libertarians strongly oppose. They believe that it’s impossible to use economic incentives to get people to change their behavior to be more responsible”

Libertarians are quite aware that people respond to economic incentives; that has nothing to do with their opposition, and I’m sure they’d freely concede that sin taxes can encourage responsible behavior among a few (I certainly would). The dispute really centers around whether, as a general matter, it’s just and/or prudent for the government to try to compel people not to lead a “sinful” life, whether that involves porn or psychoactive substances or what have you. (Of course, I’m excluding “sins” that inflict harm upon other people.) I’d argue that, for most people, sin taxes penalize perfectly responsible people for not living according to the dictates of moral busybodies.

“Do liberals think that the government should force children to watch a show about Janet Jackson’s boob? Do conservatives? how about forbidding children from watching it (maybe through the use of that judicial system that you support?)?

no, of course they don’t. There fore using it as an example to say something about “libertarianismâ€? is stupid, and wastes everyone’s time.”

Hm, I do think you’re mistaken: Conservatives certainly endorse censoring television so that children can’t see things like JJ’s boob. And while I don’t think I’ve heard any liberals speak out about the JJ incident, they certainly argue that the TV broadcast spectrum is a “public resource” and can be controlled accordingly (which includes the power to dictate content).

Also, Kathleen, as you can see, Sullum basically proposes that broadcast TV content shouldn’t be any more regulated than newspaper content. That’s a pretty radical proposal. So I don’t see how Sullum’s column “wastes everyone’s time,” if by that you mean he’s saying something everyone already agrees with.

They were all good, but the Malkin one was just so elegant I’m declaring it the winner.

Okay, I know I should just roll my eyes and shrug it off but this “Over the years, liberal judges have twisted the First Amendment’s phrase about “free exercise of religion” to mean the opposite — that you are not free to exercise your religion if atheists or members of non-Christian religions say that they are offended.” made me say motherfucking son of a bitch. Separation of church and state is based on the establishment clause, you fucking moron. Read the WHOLE first amendment, it’s really not that long. Come to think of it, I had to write a letter to The Economist a way long time ago about this same distinction. But I really don’t get what is so hard about the concept: practicing your religion: hunky dory; cramming your religion down other people’s throats: not so much.

Libertarians are quite aware that people respond to economic incentives; that has nothing to do with their opposition, and I’m sure they’d freely concede that sin taxes can encourage responsible behavior among a few (I certainly would).

Well, I wouldn’t (I don’t believe taxes or government programs are able to influence personal responsibility in any way), and neither would the average self-described Libertarian, from what I’ve seen. In fact, one dude actually came to my site and yelled at me to stop calling myself a Libertarian because I argued that sin taxes are sometimes ok (I recognize the difference between using a sin tax as a way to encourage responsible behavior vs. a way to fund the public health fallout of an activity).

The dispute really centers around whether, as a general matter, it’s just and/or prudent for the government to try to compel people not to lead a “sinful� life, whether that involves porn or psychoactive substances or what have you. (Of course, I’m excluding “sins� that inflict harm upon other people.) I’d argue that, for most people, sin taxes penalize perfectly responsible people for not living according to the dictates of moral busybodies.

And the reason I consider myself a libertarian is because I believe that it’s not just for the government to prevent anyone from doing any activity that has no direct bearing on another person. Sin taxes are a poor name because it leads to a belief that the government can dictate morality, but I think those types of taxes are fine if there’s a public health cost to that activity and that’s what the money is used for. It’s not about trying to discourage behavior, it’s about providing services. That’s the role of government.

thehim–

Why bother? It’s pretty clear that Mr. Tievsky is not interested in being persuaded, nor in seeing the absurdity of a libertarian (please note the lowercase “l”)casting his lot with the right-wing Town Hall crew. Indeed, he doesn’t seem to see much of the humor in the silly sturm und drang of the Aynarchists. Plant a troll banner and go on to more entertaining things.

BTW, that Ivan Osorio is a laff riot. His poster child for corporate responsibility (the old-fashioned kind–when “responsibility” meant “profitability”) is Nestle. If you don’t get that particular joke, Google “bottle-baby syndrome”, a particularly nasty and wholly avoidable form of starvation that occurs among Third World infants when their mothers are conned into stopping breastfeeding and buying formula–which they cannot afford to continue giving, even as their own milk production dries up. This neat little gift to the developing world was launched in the mid-1970s by…none other than Nestle.

‘Scuse me. I just spilled my drink.

But I really don’t get what is so hard about the concept: practicing your religion: hunky dory; cramming your religion down other people’s throats: not so much.

Evangelicalism, among other sects, is based on the idea that practicing your religion *is* cramming it down the throats of others, to put it inelegantly.
Other sects work on the premise that their religion is defined in part by calling, for example, gays sinners and demanding they repent or convert or be killed.

If we refuse to let them force theocracy on us, or to let them discriminate in the name of their religion, then we are, by definition, not allowing them to practice their religion.

My religion, though, says I cannot make conversation with or hire or rent to or in any way deal with republicans. My religion also dictates that I must stalk creationists, and have sex with with persons of both genders in public. Also, clothing is evil.

Can I start coming to work naked, with my naked partners, and refusing to take orders from republicans, except, of course, on days when I’m hanging out outside the homes of creationists calling them morons?

I think I’m being prevented from practicing my religion. This is clearly unConstitutional discrimination. The natural argument here will be that “But my religion is real and yours is not,” to which I respond, “Says who?”
My Gods say mine is dandy, and I got more of ‘Em than they do.

d.sidhe, can I join your Church? Please say yes, I’m at work and I’ve taken off my clothes.

A friend and I were thinking of applying for a grant from the Office of Fatih-Based Initiatives. As far as we could tell, there are (and Constitutionally can be) no strict set criteria for what constitutes a “valid” religion for purposes of declaring oneself a faith-based organization.

sorry Matt T., but banning something from network TV is not the same as forbidding children from watching it at all. the difference is clear.

and if you say that Sullum’s core point was “basically proposes that broadcast TV content shouldn’t be any more regulated than newspaper content.”, then I wonder why you agreed that “As a libertarian, I believe parents, and not the government, should decide whether their children watch that show about Janet Jackson’s boob” was an accurate summary of his column in the first place. Again ,the difference is clear. as is the humor.

By all means, merlallen. As long as you’re not a republican or creationist. (I’m pretty sure I’d have spotted that by now, actually.)

In all this discussion about libertarians, I’ve come to the conclusion that your average libertarian wants to pass the dutchie from the RIGHT-hand side.

WF