Saturday, May 28, 2016

On CNN, Reason Editor Nick Gillespie Just Called Gold Bugs Weirdos

CNN is providing extensive coverage of the Libertarian Party convention being held this weekend in Orlando, Florida.

It appears the party is being taken over by a group that so wants to dilute and distort the libertarian message that now even support of gold is considered weird.

At one point this morning, CNN interviewed Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch of the Koch-funded Reason magazine.

The talking points seemed to center around the idea that the Libertarian Party is a "centrist" party somewhere between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.

At one point, Gillespie told the CNN host that in the past the party was "filled with a lot of weird people, gold bugs and people who want private sidewalks."

He indicated that this has now changed.

So what exactly does this new crowd consider "centrist libertarianism"?

Bill Weld, who Gary Johnson wants to be his running mate if he gets the LP presidential nomination, was also interviewed by CNN.

Weld told CNN that the LP was centrist because it was more fiscally conservative than Democrats. Thus creating the implied absurd impression that current Republicans have been somehow fiscally conservative.

He went on to say that the LP was in support of pro-gay laws, which, he said, Republicans were against.

Thus, providing the horrific impression that libertarianism somehow has something to say about views on gays.

Although I personally think hate is almost always wasted energy if not downright goofy, libertarianism has no say on gay lifestyles or any other lifestyles. It has nothing to say about gay hate or any other kind of hate.

Libertarianism is about the non-aggression principle; don't mess with my person or my property, that is it.

It is a radical philosophy. It is the opposite of the "centrist," confused, dilutive mud these characters are slinging.



  1. I used to subscribe to 'Reason', only to quickly come to the conclusion that their interpretation of libertarianism was libertine. As for Nick, he so wants to be part of the in crowd. We all know the criteria for that, and much of it has little to do with libertarianism.

    [I seem to be on a quote kick today]

    "And you will be drawn in, if you are drawn in, not by desire for gain or ease, but simply because at that moment, when the cup was so near your lips, you cannot bear to be thrust back again into the cold outer world. It would be so terrible to see the other man’s face—that genial, confidential, delightfully sophisticated face—turn suddenly cold and contemptuous, to know that you had been tried for the Inner Ring and rejected. And then, if you are drawn in, next week it will be something a little further from the rules, and next year something further still, but all in the jolliest, friendliest spirit." - C. S. Lewis

  2. Nothing has been more destructive to the libertarian philosophy than the idea that libertarianism is ONLY about the NAP and nothing more.

    1. Nothing has been more destructive to the libertarian philosophy than the idea that libertarianism is about ANYTHING other than the NAP.

      How many freakin' people even know what the NAP is or means? How have YOU measured the widespread extent of its alleged infamy? What horrible things happen to people in the absence of violence? Make a list.

    2. Spoken like a true...what? Conservative or progressive who in the end doesn't really want to leave people alone?

      That's like saying nothing has been more destructive to the philosophy of free markets than the assumption that it should be about two or more parties voluntarily making exchanges.

      Your supposed version of "libertarianism" is just libertarianism where you subjectively cherry pick which aspects about it you like and don't like.
      It is this that is destructive to the libertarian philosophy.

    3. Bob, how are you going to apply the NAP? How will you determine what is initiation of aggression and what is not? How will you determine whether a fetus is a person or not? How will you determine what property is? How will you determine when property is justly acquired and when property is abandoned? How will you explain why the NAP is better than alternative principles? What kind of a world do you envision based on your application of the NAP? Will it be a pluralistic world or an insular world? These are just some of the questions outside of the NAP that must be answered to bring the NAP into the real world. If you have no answers for these questions, or think any interpretation is fine, you are going to have people calling for very different laws and very different types of societies.

      This is what I mean by saying that the idea that all we need is the NAP is destructive to libertarian philosophy. It leads to intellectual sloth.

    4. What is property? You can’t be serious. Read this book. Under $9. Free shipping. Cheap.

  3. I'm the weirdo demanding private sidewalks. Designed by Trump and sold to the ladies by the Property Twins. I'll bet the parents of these kids wished they lived somewhere that had private sidewalks. But that would be SO WEIRD, right?

    And if we had that weird gold stuff as money, it would be so weird not having to invest in a house to maintain your savings. How weird would that be for poor people, Nick?

  4. The most destructive thing to libertarian outreach has been the total failure to explain to conservative religious types that they could live in their own neighborhoods with their own private schools, streets and sidewalks and escape the nasty popular culture. Nick is going to make sure that continues.

  5. I’ll bet 9 month old KenDarious Edwards Jr. wished his mom lived where they had private sidewalks. Gosh, with private sidewalks, you could have a contractually based drug free neighborhood and no black market. How freakin’ WEIRD is that, Nick?

  6. Nothing has been more destructive to Libertarian philosophy than Libertarians watering down and not following Libertarian philosophy.

  7. I'd rather be 'weird' than normal when normal means being a fool