The narrow horizon of Libertarians 45

We consider ourselves libertarians with a small “l”: atheist libertarian conservatives.

We are not, however, to be counted among Libertarians because we part company with them on a number of issues that have arisen in our experience.

Some libertarian organizations are historical revisionists – in particular, Holocaust revisionists. One group told us they do not believe the Holocaust ever happened, or if it did, “the numbers of those killed could not have been anywhere near as large as is alleged”. This is not just ignorant, it must be maliciously intended too.

Libertarians have maintained that it’s okay to use children for pornography “if you pay them”. This is so vile, we can only hope most Libertarians do not agree with it.

Libertarians keep themselves under-informed about foreign affairs, and are absurdly pacifist. In America many are isolationist. We believe the US needs to be very strongly defended, and that defense sometimes requires a pre-emptive strike. We also believe in the Pax Americana, which means at present that this single super-power has a duty to protect the non-Islamic world from the forces of savage Islam – with arms if necessary.

Now a well-known Libertarian, a candidate for the presidency, is making a case for isolationism by falsely accusing the Republican Party – of which he is a member – of creating the Islamic State (IS/ISIS/ISIL).

We quote from an AP report. (Find it all at the New York Post here.)

Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul is blaming his own party for the rise of the Islamic State group.

The freshman senator from Kentucky said Wednesday that the GOP’s foreign policy hawks “created these people”. …

“ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately,” Paul said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe.

He continued:

“They created these people. ISIS is all over Libya because these same hawks in my party loved – they loved Hillary Clinton’s war in Libya. They just wanted more of it.”

Paul favors less military intervention abroad, wants a dramatic reduction in U.S. money to foreign governments and stands in opposition to the Patriot Act and the US policy behind drone strikes. It all makes him something of an outlier on foreign policy and national security in the GOP field. …

We agree with him that there should be a reduction in money to foreign governments: a reduction to zero. But that is an issue on which he has changed his mind (or says he has):  

Sensitive to being branded an isolationist in the race, he has scaled back some of his positions, no longer calling for deep cuts in the Pentagon budget, for example, and no longer proposing the elimination of foreign aid, including to Israel. …

Bobby Jindal, Governor of Illinois and a possible rival of Rand Paul as a presidential candidate, “described Paul’s comments as ‘a perfect example of why Senator Paul is unsuited to be commander in chief'”:

“We have men and women in the military who are in the field trying to fight ISIS right now, and Senator Paul is taking the weakest, most liberal Democrat position,” Jindal said. “We should all be clear that evil and radical Islam are at fault for the rise of ISIS, and people like President Obama and Hillary Clinton exacerbate it.”

We don’t think of “evil” as a force separate from human will, but we do agree of course that Islam is the cause of the rise of ISIS, and that Obama and Hillary Clinton have helped it rise.

In his interview earlier, Paul described Iraq as “a failed state”

Which it is …

 … and criticized Republicans who condemn his foreign policy as weak.

Which it is.

  • A.Alexander

    Libertarians are ideological revolutionaris.Look at Cato institute political articles!And like all theorists in politics they creat a chaos of different extremist views as the bolsheviks` “nationalization of the women of Saratov”. Liberals,in comparison have learned something from Marxist predecessors` collapce.

    • Real liberals have learnt, I agree. But I don’t think American “liberals” – ie. “Progressives” – have learnt anything from history.

      • A.Alexander

        Americans all sociological and economical questions connect with the everyday`s politics.Ayn Rand believed in the key importaince of the theory and blamed Libertarians for political activity. About contemporary Muclims: American blacks` history and colonialism created “multiculturalism” that denies the problems of the coexistance of the states and individuals with the different not only culture,but the intellectual development. The problem of Muslims is their collective oppozition to domination of the West.This problem can`t be decided without some “sanitary cordon” against bolshevics.”multiculty” must be defeated theoretically and politically,i`m sure.

    Just saw this today – posting it as a footnote to the article and the controversy:

    “I used to identify as a libertarian. There are many reasons
    why I no longer do so. One is the libertarians’ often obsessive attempt to
    figure out every question in life as if it were a matter of simple algebra:
    plug in The Perfect Libertarian Axioms and get The One True Answer. Another reason is a style of debate, common among the younger, orthodox libertarians, that allows for no disagreement without denunciation. Reflecting on Rand Paul’s theatrics, Ace at Ace of Spades HQ writes: ‘We define ourselves not just by our heroes and devotions, but even more by our enemies and our anathemas. I believe that it is foundational to the capital-L Libertarian creed, whether they realize it or not, that conservatives are enemies on an emotional level and to be treated with contempt and jeering. A large part of capital-L Libertarianism, many have noted, seems to be a sort of performance art of ritualized disdain for the Squares and Stiffs of the right.’ Every political ideology has proponents that are obnoxious, crude, and intolerant. Every faction has its awful tendencies. But the propensity to denounce and castigate will always be stronger among those groups that define themselves in opposition to some traditional mainstream. The nature of our technology only makes it worse. In the age of social media, when one’s political views are increasingly linked to one’s social status and employability, there is an overwhelming need for people to prove themselves worthy of sitting at the cool kids’ table.” –
    Robert Wargas at PJ Media

    • Interesting, Jillian. He also seems to be making the “capital-L” distinction in a way I had never seen before this week. I’ve always seen “small-l” libertarianism referring to an ideology (or perhaps a group of ideologies), with “Big-L” Libertarianism referring to a particular political party.

      Some libertarians (and some Libertarians) oppose conservatives (and Republicans) because we consider their ideology (and party affiliation) to be completely incompatible with libertarianism (and Libertarianism).

      Other libertarians/Libertarians consider conservatives/Republicans to be compatible with us in some way, usually along the lines of being our morally reprobate and/or mentally retarded distant cousins whom we love and would like to help correct/improve themselves.

      My impression is that conservatives/Republicans are similarly split in their opinions of libertarians/Libertarians.

  • Don L

    Microsoft must be operated by the Obama bunch these days…Google is. Privacy and Choice have been taken away!

    Good morning this morning…have you updated your Windows Operasting system yet? If you have a PC with WIN 7 or 8 OS, you will discover than a new icon sits in your system tray…that’s the lower right side of your screen where all the little icons sit. It is an icon for WIN 10 (emulates the Windows icon with 4 white panes). When you click on the icon, you get 4 choices. All of which result in a trigger that signals here’s-a-warm-body to MSFT…and you are automatically perceived to reserve a copy of the new OS. And, having reserved it, when it is released on July 29, 2015, it will automatically be installed on your machine…with or without email confirmation of the reservation, And…they don’t even care if your OS is pirated…that tells you something fishy is at work.

    Yes, it is free. But, you have no choice. I have spent some time this AM with several levels of MSFT tech support personnel. There is no way to remove the icon…NO WAY. They put it there and although it is your machine…you can’t get rid of it. And, they told me, that when WIN 10 is released, they aren’t sure, but there only ‘MIGHT’ be a way to stop the install or get rid of the icon. Ah, oh yeah,of course, once WIN 10 is installed…no need for the icon so more than likely it will be automatically removed. These people have no clue about what is going to happen. There standard reply is a sales pitch. Any question about not doing it is met with a big, “Can you hold” followed by a “well, maybe and might…it’s Free?”.

    Private property and your authorization is no longer recognized or needed. Whats more…WIN 10 is cloud based…that means your stuff is on somebody else’s server…not on your machine. Rand Paul is needed…me thinks. Incidentally, he isn’t just removing the Patriot Act…the author, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, says it is flawed and ought be removed…but he is pushing for the Freedom act, already passed in the house, to be approved by the Senate, It fixes the Patriot problems. Now fix Google and MSFT…I wonder what deals have been made with the Obama admin?

    So…welcome to MSFT’s world of WIN 10. Absolutely amazing. Reading the press releases…they all take the tone of here’s what you’ve been waiting for…aren’t we wonderful and it’s free…so what we do to violate you is just peachy keen..right?

    • Your warning is duly noted, with thanks. Many of our readers will notice the new icon. (I myself use a Mac.) It all sounds sinister and anti-freedom. If Rand Paul can help us keep Internet freedom, it would be great. Can he? Could he – even if he were to be president?

      • Don L

        Here’s a start at answering you: (50 seconds)

        An another: (47 minutes)

        Yes, I think Paul, out of all current and potential candidates, is the only one that understands the fight.

        Interestingly, the FOX folks are singing ‘some’ praises, this AM, about Paul…less coming from the militant hawks: AKA McCain, & Graham; and others who probably have some tie to cromies involved in metadata sweeps..???…its all about re-election for these career-pols.

        • I’ve watched the videos (all of the short one and part of the long one) and yes, I think Rand Paul is right on this important issue and would be strong in defending Internet freedom

          But what about his foreign policy? He seems weak and prevaricating on foreign affairs. What would he do to stop the advance of Islam? Under Sharia, there is no Internet freedom.

          • Don L

            Candidly, I too would like to hear stronger words from him. As I have stated, on his announcement night, on Hannity’s Show, he was specific in saying he would not pwrmit Iran to have nuclear weapons. It was low key…not like a McCain or other hawk would say it so he really didn’t dispell doubt. I’d like to hear it more often from him.

            He is not the pacificist his father is but he does adhere to the Geo Washingto notion of Free Trade everywhere (not government contracts/treaties which are anti-free trade) but no foreign entaglements. He supports Israel and will not cut off their aid. He will cut it off for our enemies. He is also intent on shutting off the various banking and financing organization redistributing America’s wealth, under ther table, around the worldwhile simultaneously inflating our currency ($3.99/lb steaks, 3 years ago now $15.99/lb – and they say there is no inflation). He isn’t attacking the FED as directly as his father but he is strongly pushing, a first step, at mandating FED audits. That will open eyes!!!

            Long-to-short…I would like to hear him state loudly that he’d use military action, if necessary, to stop Iran’s acquiring nukes. Incredibly, as much as I’ve wathched his interviews, nobody, except Hannity early on, has ever actually asked him. I sit and expect the question and answer…it never comes…GRRR! And yet, all,the talking heads keep accusing him of being weak. If they ask they can’t say that anymore; if he’s more hawkish than they paint him…right?

    • liz

      “Here’s what you’ve been waiting for – aren’t we wonderful and it’s free!”
      Ha! Suuuure it is! …sounds just like Obamacare!

  • Don L

    First…I am not a libertarian and agree with much of Ms Becker’s observations and analysis of those who are. But then:

    “Everything that they have talked about in foreign policy, they have been wrong about for 20 years, and yet they have somehow the gall to keep saying and pointing fingers otherwise,” Paul said.

    It’s true. Like the media always trotting out the econ loser and ignoring the Austrian economists like Peter Schiff…here come McCAin, Boehner and McConnel again.

    I do take issue with this ascertion: “…by falsely accusing the Republican Party”. He did not accuse the party…only the militant hawks. And, if one actually follows the interplays…he is talking abot McCain, Graham and their acolyte Ayotte. They have never met a conflict they didn’t like.

    McCain is proud to claim Teddy Roosevelt as his political hero…the guy who introduced progressivism and involved the Republic in wars of colonialism across the globe. Wars which we still pay for; literally through the FED, having instilled horrendous governments always with their hands out.

    Not addressed is if it is true…did US arms distributed all over the place give ISIS the impetus it needed. Did the arms from Libya make it to Syria. Yes, Obama’s assinine intervention but wholly supported by the Repub Hawks. Rand Paul isn’t saying they gave ISIS the cause. He is saying the hawks idiocy provided the means for ISIS to be ISIS rather than…who or what the F is an ISIS. Weaponry, he is claiming, created ISIS not the desire to be a caliphate. The former makes the latter possible. Absolutely true…so, fall for the establishment repub propaganda…another election made worthless.

    There is this constant “he changed his mind”. His reponse is so did the world and so his mind changed. A few years ago, when initially asked, there had not been a middleeast “spring”, a Benghazi, et ceteras. His cutting defense was of a prior time and was about efficiency not about stripping capabilities.

    He has always been against foreign aid…to those who are our enemies. He also understands the FED, World Bank and IMF criminal conspiracy robbing the Republic of its wealth…he is an Austrian economic adherent; you cannot hear him in the way you listen to the rest. He knows the UN, IMF WTC and World Bankfinance arms and misery all over the world through loans that repeatedly default…The FED pays these loans off. US Taxpayers alway being handed the bill…under the table. He wants this stopped…fastest way to rid the world of 2-bit dictators and end the funding of terrorists: END the FED!

    The courts ruled the current patriot act is not constitutional. The Congress can change the wording to make it so. At issue is the sweeping, non-specific, warrant issuances. Further, those attacking Paul use a 1979 ruling that had to do with a phone record that was thrown away. Yes, once thown away, the record that showed a phone number called another phone number for a specfic time was not protected as it had been thrown away. Extrapolating to NSA gathering this (metadata) #-to-# and time as being legal is false. The metadat was not thrown away and the expectation of privacy is protected by the 4th Amendment. Further, the government, unconstitutionally, demands the carrier hold the information forever…where is that Constitutional empowerment. Subscribe with us…we don’t hold your data” sounds like a winning ad to me.

    In an interview with Hannity earlier this year, the night Paul announced, in fact, he was specific in saying Iran would not be allowed to have a nuke and that he believed, like Reagan, in peace through strength.

    Nyaa Nyaa Nyaaa…LOL!

  • “We are not, however, to be counted among Libertarians because, having no idea who they are or what they believe, we just decided to make up a bunch of stuff to distract from our abject ignorance.”

    There, fixed that for ya.

    • Don L

      Thomas L. Knapp, What? How about showing back up and giving us an idea about what you are trying to convey. Otherwise, ya haven’t fixed anything…dontcha know.

      • Don L,

        The article was explicit: It did not make claims as to what “libertarians” believe, but what “Libertarians” believe.

        Capital-L “Libertarians” are members of the Libertarian Party.

        Rand Paul is not a capital-L Libertarian, as the article implies. He is a Republican.

        Rand Paul has also plainly stated that he’s not a small-l “libertarian” either.

        Granted, Paul’s foreign policy views are slightly less batshit Hitlerian insane than the GOP mainstream, but that doesn’t make him a L/libertarian.

        • Don L

          What stupidity…big L vs little l. You obfuscate. What is a Libertarian in your view? stop with HS BS and act/write like an adult

          Ah…what is differnt between l and party l?

          • Don L,

            Why are you accusing me of obfuscating? I am not the one who introduce the L/l distinction. The author of the article introduced it.

            A Libertarian (with a capital L) is a member of the Libertarian Party. Its platform is available online. And no, it doesn’t support child sex trafficking or Holocaust denial.

            It’s true that both Libertarians and libertarians favor a sane foreign policy. I consider that a feature, not a bug.

            • Don L

              Look…wouldn’t it have been easier to start with saying that a distiction should be made between libertarian and Libertarian Party? Instead you chose a cheap shot…an insult. To then carry on with more ambiguity about big and little l is obfuscation,.as far as I’m concerned.

              Why don’t you give us an abstract of the party’s platform. I’m sure the rest of us would be interested. see…easy.

              Oh…I still think this is a bit (quite a bit) sophmoric: “Supreme Being, Master of All Time, Space and Dimension.”. Sorry.

              I am, however, serious about what you have to say about your party.

            • Why should I have to explain the distinction that the author made in the first place? If she didn’t write clearly, that’s on her, not me.

              I undertook the task of pointing out that she was either intentionally lying or ignorantly making stuff up, because that was the task I cared about.

              If you’re interested in the Libertarian Party’s platform, it takes about five seconds to find it online. Here, I’ll knock it down to three seconds for you:


            • Don L

              See, there you go again. like some jacked HS kid, “why should I…it’s her fault. As I pointed out, the media never make the distinction…do you contact them and insult them? An adult ponts out…asks for a correction…is adult!

              I might look up your party, but if you’re an example…who gives a damn. As Mr Wonderful says, “you’re dead to me!

            • Don L

              Incidentally, you and I might have a common interest. I’m an adherent to the school of Austrian economics. A lot of the small l folks are too. Given alot of their absurdities…it often worries me they are sullying the Austrian School’s credibility.

              I wouls suspect the lille l folk also cause concern for you big L folk. Geez…for the rest of my life I’ll be doing big l and little l. Crap!

            • Don L

              Last comment…as you are dead to me…Jillian never made a distinction as you see it. Her L and l were within little l (to use your vernacular): a libertarian without all the negative baggage.

              That you and a big L mattered was never an issue. It was in your comprhension only. I cannot speak for her, but I’m sure she knows of the Party…she just wasn’t discussing that…and who knew cap L was a secret code. Who knew…oh yes, “Supreme Being, Master of All Time, Space and Dimension knew. ooweeoo Geez!

    • Some years ago, I was invited by a major Libertarian organization in Britain to be one of their Council members and an adviser. I accepted. For years we read Libertarian texts (including Rothbard, David Friedman and the other well-known Libertarian thinkers), listened to visiting Libertarians’ lectures, discussed Libertarian ideas in formal and informal meetings. I left when the swelling membership became – against my advice – dominated by people who advocated child pornography (and even worse corruption of children than that), and Holocaust revisionism became a majority opinion, and pacifism was talked of as if it were an unchallengeable good. If nevertheless I remain in abject ignorance of what libertarians think and say, please be so kind as to enlighten me, Thomas L. Knapp. I am a regular watcher of Stossel, I read new essays by Libertarians as they come out, including (frequently) some by members of the Cato Institute. I know quite a few Libertarians and still have discussions with them. But you indicate that there is some body of knowledge about Libertarianism with which I am not acquainted. That is remarkable. However did it happen, I wonder. Please don’t keep me on tenterhooks another moment, but relieve my curiosity – however much you apparently despise me. That would really fix it for me.

      • Jillian,

        I don’t “despise” you. But if you’re going to write about something, the affirmative obligation to be truthful and to know what the hell you’re talking about is on you, not on anyone else.

        • You are evading the obligation that is now on you to tell me what I don’t know about Libertarianism. If you do not, I will deduce that you are the one who knows nothing about it.

          • Don L

            LOL…it’s a trap. stop. you are trying to be reasonable with the Supreme Being, Master of All Time, Space and Dimension. It won’t work!!!

          • If that’s what you “deduce,” then what you’re doing isn’t “deducing.”

            And no, pointing out that you don’t know what you’re talking about does not obligate me to educate you.

            • You say I am ignorant. You imply that I am a liar and a charlatan. (Yet, you say, you do not despise me!) You hint that you know all about Libertarianism while being certain that I know nothing about it. But you will not produce any evidence that you know anything about it at all. But of course only an insolent foolish braggart and fraud would call himself Supreme Being and Master of Time etc. as you do.

            • I do not claim to know “all” about libertarianism, or Libertarianism.

              But after 20-odd years in the libertarian movement (much of that in the Libertarian Party) and millions of written (and, mostly, published) words on the subject, as well as publishing and editing the oldest continuously published daily libertarian newsletter on the Internet for coming up on 13 years now, I’ll readily stipulate that I know a few things about both.

              I do not propose myself as the ultimate educator/arbiter on libertarianism by any stretch of the imagination, but if you want me to play that role for you, you can have your wish without any need of active cooperation from me by the simple expedient of Googling my name.

              Not sure where this “Supreme Being” stuff is coming from in this context. That line is from an old Steve Martin comedy routine, and I have used it here and there in signatures, but I certainly have never used it either seriously, or in this thread.

            • The Libertarian Party of America is of no interest to me. There are hundreds of other libertarian organizations. Rand Paul has often said he is a libertarian. The article rightly says he is a Republican.

              I happen to know the Supreme Being (who is not the same person as the Master of Time) so I know you are a braggart and a fraud. And insolent. And foolish. (Click on your thumbnail picture on this page and you’ll know where we got your bragging fraudulent claim from. I thought it likely that you can’t see further than your own nose!)

            • If Rand Paul has “often” said he’s a “libertarian,” you should probably be able to point to an instance of him doing so.

              Sort of like I can point to his 2010 statement in Time Magazine: “They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross, but I’m not a libertarian.”


              I’m beginning to see that the problem isn’t with the things you don’t know, but with the things you know that happen not to be true.

            • Here are a couple of references (there are many more) :

              “Rand Paul used to be libertarian. Now he describes himself as ‘libertarian-ish’.” (Follow the link, read the rest, if you doubt me.)

              And from Wiki, under “Rand Paul”:
              Political positions: He is generally described as a libertarian,
              a term he both embraced[162] and
              162 Stewart, Martina (May 4, 2010). “‘I’m very serious about running’, Ron Paul’s son
              says”. CNN. Retrieved November 15,2010. Like his
              father, the son also favors notions of limited government. “Libertarian
              would be a good description,” Rand Paul told CNN, “because libertarians believe in freedom in all aspects of your life – your economic life as well as your social life as well as your personal life.”
              BUT –
              163: Newton-Small, Jay (March 17, 2010). “Is Rand Paul Good or Bad for Republicans?”. Time. Retrieved 30 March 2014. “They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross, but I’m not a libertarian.”
              So he said it and he unsaid it.

            • Yep.

              The heuristic I use is that when someone claims something good about himself (e.g. “I am a libertarian”) and also admits the bad opposite about himself (e.g. “I am not a libertarian”), then in the absence of other evidence I assume that the admission of evil, rather than the protestation of good, is the one to believe.

              I apply this to Paul especially because it’s hard to find an issue or description he HASN’T flip-flopped on multiple times.

            • Interestingly, in the context of this rather silly discussion (silly on your part, Mr. Knapp, not ours), here’s a quotation from the Politico article I have given the link to:

              “There are a lot of libertarians who will sit down and talk with you for hours on end about the Fed and macroeconomic theory and Hayek and so forth,” said Bob Barr, who represented Georgia in Congress for five terms before running for president as the Libertarian Party’s nominee in 2008. “That’s great, but the average voter doesn’t know who Hayek was, doesn’t know who Milton Friedman was and doesn’t know what the Federal Reserve does. Rand is much more founded in the real world than his dad was when he was a candidate. Rand understands that if you want to win a national election as a libertarian – that is with a small ‘l’ – you have to appeal to a lot of Republicans. We have, after all, a two-party system – period, end of argument.”

              “A libertarian – that is with a small “l” …”

              Not surprising really. It’s perfectly sensible.

              By the way, Don L, and I, and multitudes of other persons who value liberty, often “talk about the Fed (that it should be abolished) and Hayek and so forth”.

              But you have travelled beyond all this, I see, Mr Knapp, to questions of good and evil. So I’ll wave good-bye to you now.

            • Don L

              LOL…this has been one of the most bizzare visits. Big L and little l…just amazing. The comment about his not wanting to needlessly insult you…LOL…I guess the insults he laid on you weren’t needless? Oh boy.

              I’ve been trying to employ a devixce to get you all to think of Cruz with a clothespin on his nose…nope. But this guy will have me, you?, LOL…doing Big L and little l everytime we think libertarian. And, it isn’t that he may have had a point in his notion…capitalizing Democrat and Republican is accepted. It is that he couldn’t grasp the simplicity of your ‘device’ (my word) application of the capital L relative to the topic of the libertarian IDEOLOGY…separate and distibnct from the party…It just flew right over his head. Twenty years he’s been a libertarian and a Libertarian…but never a thinker will he be….oooo…heuristic…evil and good…oooo.

              What got me, if he was a writer…why wouldn’t he at least attempt to give us an abstract of the party platform. Answered my own question. He was just too hung up on the capitalization nonsense to even consider engaging in real exchage. Jillian, you had to have known capitalizing Libertarian meant you were writing about those in the libertarian party ( I willnever capitalize it…like I won’t capitalize islam, god) musn’t you have had to have had to know?.

              Oh, oh, oh…how about the” How did you know tht’s what I have called myself?”. LOL…just amazing.

              I enjoyed it! I like cussin’ folks out ARRR. I have to get a parrot…ARRR matey!

            • And I’ll wave good-bye back to you. Have a great week.

            • Socrates Wilde

              Wow. What was THAT?!

            • Don L

              Do a mouseover your icon and your description reads:

              Thomas L. Knapp

              Supreme Being, Master of All Time, Space and Dimension.

              One has to believe you, not facebook, provided the copy.

            • The “big L” and “little l” thing is on the analogy of being conservative or being a Conservative. That’s all. Not intended to put any constraints on anyone. Just seemed a quick way to make a point.

            • Don L

              Listen you absolute dipsoid. I looked up your tripe. Thirteen years of putting out nonsense. You are no editor. Read what Jillian wrote…nowherte is libertarian party involved . A distinction only in your mind; given an imbecilic application of a capital L. What crap. Look at your picture…who would take you seriously…losers.

              You applied this insane party l even when the capitalization was only because the word was at the beginning of a sentence. “It’s her fault…” you are a buffoon. If the libertarian party is proud of you…standards at this org are low.

              You started the look me up…look up Jillian’s credentials. You are not only not in the same ballpark with her…you aren’t even in the same universe. Big L, little l…such an empty and useless point of contention. you ought be ashamed…but you won’t be. That’s a shame.

              You are even more dead to me! I still can’t figure out who are you trying to impress or who would be impressed by your intentional auto-imagery communication. What’s the intended message? I get delusional narcissist…with deleterious habits. Certainly not a serious or authorative person…fits your communications here, anyways! LOL

            • “You applied this insane party l even when the capitalization was only because the word was at the beginning of a sentence.”

              Perhaps you should take your own advice. Here is what she wrote:

              “We consider ourselves libertarians with a small ‘l’: atheist libertarian conservatives.

              We are not, however, to be counted among Libertarians …”

              “look up Jillian’s credentials”

              I’m well aware of her credentials. I do not claim to be in the same ballpark as her. I brought my credentials up only when they were specifically questioned, and did not reference hers for reasons that should be perfectly obvious (associating this single instance of incoherent drivel with an otherwise impressive record would be needlessly insulting to her).

            • Don L

              Yet, you thought it OK to call her a liar and ignorant.

              You are an idiot…you just don’t get it. It has been explained 6 ways from Sunday…big L little l is your life dilema not ours. Not once was Jillian or anyone else here ever talking about, or wanting to talk about, the libertarian F’n party!!! little l and big l were a DEVICE for conveying a propensity for some (little l), NOT all (big L) the libertarian idelogy parameters. Everyone but you understands this literary device. You’re the only one with any problem…eat s__t and die jacka__! go away! through a clock out the window…watch time fly…jerk!!!

      • Don L

        You have fallen into the trap of the “Supreme Being, Master of All Time, Space and Dimension”…as he refers to himself. You apparently don’t know that when using the word libertarian and you capitalize the L…you are now talking about the Libertarian party as opposed to the libertarian ideology. Mr Knapp is incaple of expressing this distinction. After’s your fault and it’s not his responsibility to be adult and communicate…merely to insult with cheap shots. I tried to explain your play on L vs l respective of the libertarian ideology…it hasn’t struck home. I have already adopted the Mr Wonderful attitude…he is dead to me! LOL.

  • liz

    Yes, there should be a reduction of foreign aid to zero to all Islamic states, and to all Islamic immigration.
    The “hawks” may or may not have given arms “indiscriminately”, but I think Obama is to blame for most of the arms that have fallen into the hands of ISIS, and for their takeover of Iraq.
    If Rand can’t see that, he’d be likely to perpetuate the disaster Obama created.