Ferguson Reveals Racists In Libertarian Clothing

There are two kinds of libertarians: true believers in the constitution and racists hiding behind the constitution. Determining what kind of libertarian someone is, though, is as easy as asking his or her opinion on Ferguson.
By |
Be Sociable, Share!
    • Google+
    Police Shooting Missouri

    A member of the Missouri National Guard stands guard at a police command post Tuesday, Aug. 19, 2014, in Ferguson, Mo.

    The shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, has once again highlighted the bitter divisions between left and right and black and white in America. As might be expected, the usual suspects on both sides have lined up to support their view of events and lambast the other side’s interpretation of what went on between Mr. Brown and the police officer who killed him.

    As usual, very little is being produced by these arguments except a lot of hot air and angry feelings.

    Yet, there is a place where watching the debate between the two sides is both useful and productive, though not for the reasons you might think. For outside observers interested in the ebb and flow of right-wing politics, some of the most enlightening discussion is taking place among libertarians. Why? Because it is highlighting the deep divide that exists between true devotees of small-state conservatism — who have mostly progressive views on Ferguson — and the racists in Libertarian clothing who have closed ranks in support of the Ferguson police.



    Perhaps one of the best places to watch this debate in real time is in the comments section of the flagship libertarian publication, Reason. To Reason’s credit, the magazine has stuck to its libertarian principles by consistently highlighting how deeply wrong police militarization is in Ferguson and has actively condemned the excessive use of force there against both protesters and, indeed, the murdered Michael Brown.

    That this should be so isn’t surprising, after all, Reason was once the home of Radley Balko, the journalist who got the ball rolling in libertarian circles on the subject of police and prosecutorial misconduct and police militarization. What’s more, the publication has, for years, demonstrated a strong commitment to covering police brutality and injustice and has done so far better than many ostensibly liberal or mainstream outlets. Their record in this area, in particular, is superb and would make any progressive proud. Bottom line: Reason is on the side of the angels on this issue.

    The same cannot be said, however, of many of its readers, some of whom have vociferously called out the magazine for jumping onto a media bandwagon in order to score points before all the facts were in. One comment on Reason’s Facebook page, for instance, argues that Reason’s writers sound like they are “sheltered enough by their wealth to ignore the very real need for security in especially urban areas.” “Urban,” of course, is universal code for “black.” The commenter goes on to say that Reason “sounds a lot like sheltered wealthy liberals,” while another further down the page asks if the libertarian magazine had suddenly been bought by MSNBC.

    To be fair, not all of Reason’s commenters have been so critical of the publication’s record. In fact, many have stood up for its coverage of both police misconduct, in general, and Ferguson, specifically. Still, a good number — some even proudly bearing a version of the Confederate stars and bars as their avatar — lambasted Reason for being anti-cop and too quick to play into the hands of liberal activists who, apparently, plot and scheme to ruin the good name of police everywhere.


    A split in the ranks

    What’s more, this split in the libertarian ranks isn’t something that’s merely fodder for Facebook flame wars and comments section hissy fits, but is seen more broadly in the larger movement. There are, for example, many national-level politicians who are widely seen as being very sympathetic to libertarianism, such as Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, that have been pretty critical of events in Ferguson and of the way in which the justice system generally comes down like a ton of bricks on people of color. So, too, have libertarian pundits like John Stossel and Glenn Reynolds, both of whom have long questioned America’s love affair with zealous cops and increasingly militarized police forces.

    Yet, there are also libertarians who nonetheless come down squarely on the side of the cops in ways that don’t just seem racist, but are racist. Take, for instance, the words of the actual Libertarian Party Vice Presidential candidate in 2008, Tea Party activist and and current Fox News commentator Wayne Allyn Root. He commented: “It’s like we’re reliving the 1960s with Barack Obama. He didn’t come in to help us end the specter of racism, he brought it back, folks.”

    The police in Ferguson, continued Root, were afraid of a black president indicting them for racism and so allowed rioting to occur.

    Root isn’t a senator, of course, so it is wrong to use him to demonstrate that the clearly racist portion of the libertarian movement is as powerful as the Reason/Rand Paul side, but his words and the voices from Reason’s comments section nonetheless highlight something that has long gone unremarked upon by many in libertarian circles: many in their movement do not actually support small government, but, rather, support libertarianism because it is a way to oppose advancement for minorities like blacks without instantly being labelled a racist.

    This has been so since the dawn of the modern American libertarian movement and it should come as no real surprise that the first overtly sympathetic libertarian presidential candidate for the 1964 election — Arizona’s Barry Goldwater — attracted a great deal of following in the Deep South precisely due to his opposition to federal enforcement of civil rights legislation, especially public accommodation sections. No one, Goldwater honestly felt, should be forced by the government to serve those they did want to serve or sell or buy from someone they did not want to sell or buy from. As it happened, the Southern segregationists felt exactly the same way once Washington went against them.

    As a result, an alliance — still in operation today — was born between small-government libertarians and conservatives and white racists who wanted to keep blacks and all other non-whites in what they assert is their proper, inferior place. Known as the Southern strategy, the segregationist political doors unlocked by Goldwater led, in turn, to their further opening by Nixon and Reagan — who famously opened his 1980 presidential campaign with a speech on states’ rights at the Neshoba County Fair in Deep South Mississippi near where three civil rights workers had been slain by the Klan for trying to register black people to vote.

    By all accounts, Goldwater held his position on civil rights for principled reasons and there is no indication that he, himself, had an animosity toward black Americans or, indeed, anyone else. Similarly, his latter day ideological descendent, Rand Paul, has also gotten tripped up over the public accommodation sections of America’s civil rights laws for the same reason: it requires government power to regulate private interactions — the thing libertarians hate the most. Like Goldwater and his father, former Congressman Ron Paul, Rand Paul is more than likely not a racist and shouldn’t be taken as such, yet his ideological beliefs leave him supporting a position, like Barry Goldwater, that was nonetheless very attractive to racists.

    This leads us, in turn, to why it’s so interesting to watch libertarians arguing over Ferguson. It highlights in a rather stark manner this old alliance of convenience between well-meaning, if naïve, ideological libertarians and the racist variety who use the movement to cloak their animosity toward blacks. After all, as their support for the Ferguson cops clearly demonstrate, the latter brand of libertarian isn’t actually so against government or state power — they, just like the conservatives they really are, want the government to support people who look and live like them and not support those who don’t.

    So, the next time you talk to a libertarian, just ask his or her opinion on the Ferguson police. If the libertarian answers one way, you’ll know he’s a true believer, but at least a consistent and honest one. This isn’t a bad thing — after all, there is a lot in the libertarian movement to respect, admire and support.

    If, on the other hand, the libertarian answers another way, you’ll know exactly who you’re dealing with: someone who uses libertarianism not because he actually believes in it, but because libertarian ideas advance the interests of his group at the expense of others.


    The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Mint Press News editorial policy.

    Be Sociable, Share!


    Print This Story Print This Story
    You Might Also Like  
    This entry was posted in Editors Picks, Insights and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
    • Reason’s comments section has gotten only worse in recent months as more and more of the alleged defenders of liberty have jumped on the Donald Trump bandwagon. These authoritarians in libertarian clothing are exhibiting the malignant and barely disguised stench of bigotry as well, though most are careful to disguise their hatred of anything black, female, Muslim or “progressive” in nod-and-wink code words. One such example: Twitter’s banning of bigoted flamethrower Milo Yiannopoulos. Read the comments and weep if you care about actual libertarianism: http://reason.com/blog/2016/07/20/on-leslie-jones-vs-milo-yiannopoulos-sup#comment

    • Anonymous

      The 10th and 2nd Amendments are darlings of this KKK mentality. States don’t have rights. Guns are for the military and law enforcement only. Libertarianism is rebellion against Federal Authority. The Constitution is only about the form and structure of the Federal Government. It does not guarantee any rights at all. Inalienable rights do not exist.

      • Timothy Weaver

        “We call things racism just to get attention. We reduce complicated problems to racism, not because it is racism, but because it works.”
        – Alfredo Gutierrez

        “Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness”
        -Mary Frances Berry

        You are a liar and a slanderer playing the race card.

    • Anonymous


    • ronjon

      Urban is code for black? I thought thug was. or savages or animals or shithole neighborhoods. It is awful that because you don’t want to live in a ghetto you should be punished.

    • Pingback: People Against the NDAA's National Director talks about his time in Ferguson - The Anti-Media()

    • greata

      For the record, Wayne Allyn Root was a fraud. Just before resigning his position in the Libertarian Party, I had written to him and called him out on his characterization of broad sections of the country for their individual opinions and life choices. A libertarian, by definition, is very tolerant of what people do or think, until they start to harm others or deny them the these basic rights. He should just stick with the label “conservative” and stop trying to blend it with “libertarian”. If you check his bio on publications, he tends to describe himself as conservative-libertarian – and that is just plain nonsense.

    • Kennon Gilson

      Libertarians led the Civil rights act and have long warned on policing problems. For more on the world movement, see http://www.libertarianinternational.org

    • Kim Thompson

      You make some massive assumptions in your article. The largest being that anyone who suggests that the cop might have been justified in killing Brown must be a racist.

      The forensic evidence indicates that Brown both punched the Cop in the face, and had one hand within inches of the cop’s gun when he fired. His hand was covered in gunpowder which means it was within a few inches of the gun, and the wound started at the tip of his thumb and exited near the base.

      Obviously I must be a racist for stating those facts.

      Regardless of whether or not you think the cop was justified or not, the fact of the matter is that you weren’t there, yet you choose to disregard the forensic evidence, and desperately defend your conviction that the cop was unjustified.

      How can you not see that your conviction in your fabricated truth is at least as ludicrous as it’s opposite??

      • Because white people get up to worse around cops, including shooting at them, and cops are known for giving white suspects a lot more leeway no matter how they act.

        Ditto with the death penalty–the exact same capital crime will bring life without parole for a white person but death for a black one.

        That’s why. Do your damn homework.

        • Kim Thompson

          while your generalization is sound, it is still not evidence of racism on an individual level.

          if a black dude breaks into my home and i shoot him, you can’t cite systemic racism as evidence that I’m a racist, nor that I shot him because of my racism…not even if I was a cop.

    • Pingback: Liberty Needs to Join the Conversation About Race | I Take Liberty with my Coffee()

    • Lucretzia

      RandP does not think that someone should ” serve those they did want to serve or sell or buy from someone they did not want to sell or buy from” but also thinks that a pregnant women should have to carry a fetus to term even if she doesn’t want to. some libertarian.

    • Crewldude

      The true racists in Ferguson are the black protesters/rioters and their liberal white enablers who support the intellectual dishonesty and out-and-out stupidity being displayed by these bigots.

      • Alex Amerling

        Typical conservaturd response. The blacks are the racists and whites are perfect. Aren’t you late for an Aryan Nations meeting?

      • Guest

        Nailed it.

    • Reason.com has over the past few years steadily devolved into a sleazy, sensationalist cop-hate site, its anarchist staff fanning the flames of rage among the gullible and obedient chat-puppets who call the place home. If cop-hate and confirmation bias is your thing, Reason.com is the place for you. The site’s anarchist stench was never more evident than during the recent Eric Garner “murder” story, wherein Reason’s editors and chat-puppets alike got in their cop-hate revenge fantasies. “Hysterical” is too neutral a word to describe the orgy, but this latest episode did serve to illustrate once again why serious, ethical people don’t take the anarcho-libertarians at Reason seriously.

    • pacoder

      That’s some seriously self righteous judging right there. Wow.

    • chris

      The American left used to be libertarian, or at least civil libertarian, like the ACLU. They believe in free speech. Most liberals today prefer censorship of any conservative views. The ACLU protects Nazis marching in Holocaust survivor neighborhoods. Most liberals support Lois Lerner and using the IRS to harass christians, Jews and conservatives. The litmus test for liberals is their view on Israel. You can tell a real antisemite liberal by their support of terrorism in the Mideast. Libertarians such as Reason tend to be more academic, principled, and Root, the vice presidential libertarian candidate writes more from his personal experience at Columbia University, where he knows Obama never attended. You can pretend Root is racist, but his view on Obama comes from being in the exact same class at Columbia, with a major in political science, and knowing Obama never attended a class, yet got into Harvard based on Columbia transcripts. Once you notice someone lying profusely, you tend not to trust them, and it’s not racism, just personal experience. Everyone notices Obama lying, about just about everything. It’s not racist to point out his lies and motives. Liberals prefer lies. Anything Obama and liberals say is usually dishonest and principles are picked only for the occasion to promote a particular goal. Liberals and Obama have no principles. For them their self righteous arrogant goals justify any means, lying and violence most prominent. They actually think you’re a fool to believe them, and count on stupidity of Americans for their success. Root knows Obama’s perfidy, perhaps more than anyone.

    • Stephen Williams

      Leftie professor spreading his Marxist lies. It’s a simple as that.

      • Alex Amerling

        Better than your fascist White supremacist propaganda

    • ben chifley


    • ben chifley



      MIT: The Economic Benefits of Immigration.

      MIT Lending Moves Into Subprime Market with New Beginnings Lending‏

    • ben chifley

      Scientific American declares it’s against GMO labeling

      Bobby Jindal Shows His Stupidity By Calling Obama Administration ‘Science Deniers’‏

      Monsanto Gives $4.7 Million to Colorado’s Anti-GMO Labeling Campaign‏

    • ben chifley

      Fox’s Karl Rove: President Obama Has “A Lazy Attitude Towards The Job That He’s Got”

      Fox’s new reality nightmare: “I Want To Marry Harry” is a dating show for sociopaths

      Barclays Names Top Aerospace Banker

      Dark Pools, Barclays and the ‘Tone at the Top’

    • ben chifley

      daily paul telling it’s uses to read revilo oliver‏

      The Revenge of Rand Paul
      The Senator has fought to go mainstream with the ideology that he shares with his father. How far can that strategy take him?

      Far-right birther’s secret funders: Look who’s backing Islamophobe Frank Gaffney

    • ben chifley



      So Much for Reducing America’s Prison Population: Latest Figures Show Increase in 2013
      The devastation for families of low-level, non-violent offenders continues.

      The Score: Why Prisons Thrive Even When Budgets Shrink‏

    • ben chifley

      Defaming Milton Friedman

      Reason Magazine Charter School Innovations

      Louisiana governor sues Obama administration over Common Core education standards.

      Heartland Institute Giving School Choice the Milton Friedman Test.

      Gates Foundation and Scholastic Corporation report that teachers love the Common Core!‏

    • ben chifley

      The Beijing Consensus: How China’s Authoritarian Model Will Dominate the Twenty-First Century

      Heartland Institute: A History of the Disastrous Global Warming Hoax‏

      Louisiana GOP Governor Bobby Jindal Signs Bill Banning Lawsuits Against Oil And Gas Industry.

      Heartland Institute The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: A Roadmap for Success

    • ben chifley

      The physician offered the chemical DDT as a “viable alternative for treatment,” Voices of Liberty reported
      Ron Paul governments deceive people over ebola

      Charles Manson about drugs

      Anti-Vaccine Crusade Enters A Dangerous New Phase

    • ben chifley

      Rand Paul names dead libertarians Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek as favorites for top Federal Reserve job.
      George Mason University economist Lawrence H. White wrote in a 2008 paper that “Hayek’s monetary policy norm in fact prescribed stabilization of nominal income.” In other words, the Fed would be run according to a simple rule that aimed at keeping nominal gross domestic product or some other statistic growing at a stable rate from year to year. That rule would minimize the discretionary power of whoever was controlling the Fed at any given time.

      Friedman, known as the father of monetarists who believe that the Fed should focus solely on the growth of the money supply, went a step further and suggested that the Fed chairman should be replaced by a computer.

      Friedman’s k-percent rule

    • Jazzman7

      Mr. Cavanaugh contends at the outset of his article that the divisions are bitter, but I think better wording would have been more appropriate. Divisions arise among people based on viewpoint and interpretation. Commonly, people view the differences of understanding as differences in facts. As a result, it is often the case that holders of one position or another see the several positions are intractable and fixed. Language like that used in the opening line confirm those feelings.

      Had the writer said: “The recent shooting of Michael Brown, an African-American, by a white police officer in Ferguson, MO has awakened conversation about race and justice . . . ” or words along those lines, the idea that a wider conversation about unresolved issues in America might have better been started.

      As it is, Cavanaugh is himself trying to strike some balance in the talk which has already turned rather heated across the country and across the existing lines of contention of political, social, and racial “turfs.” So my point is rather that we could exercise greater precision in language both publicly and privately. If we want to see what united people can do to draw ourselves together and thereby gain the best of our our strengths and support each other for larger causes – for example, to build “a more perfect union” “with liberty and justice for all” we might consider what words may invoke to our neighbors and fellow citizens with sensitivity to their various experiences and histories.

      I find Mr. Cavanaugh’s discussion to be insightful and offering useful ways to look at a tragedy and its aftermath. I am not taking exception to his conclusions though I find some to require additional contemplation. I merely say that even in this piece, a slack use of words can cast unintended (or intended, in some cases, to be sure) meanings. We should all, then, take time to choose our words and expressions.

    • Maria

      I’m sorry Mr. Cavanaugh, but your article is nonsense. It does not even appear that you understand the meaning of the word “racism” well enough to discuss it, much less pass judgment on others. Here are the two widely accepted definitions of racism:

      • The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

      • Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.

      With those definitions in mind, if we look at the first part of Wayne Allyn Root’s statement: “It’s like we’re reliving the 1960s with Barack Obama.”

      Anything in there that suggests characteristics or abilities specific to a race?
      How about the superiority of one race or another?

      No and no.

      Apply the same questions to the second phrase: “He didn’t come in to help us end the specter of racism, he brought it back, folks.”

      Anything in there that suggests characteristics or abilities specific to a race?
      How about the superiority of one race or another?

      No and no, again.

      And how about, “The police in Ferguson, continued Root, were afraid of a black president indicting them for racism and so allowed rioting to occur.”

      Anything in there that suggests characteristics or abilities specific to a race?
      How about the superiority of one race or another?

      You guessed it. No and no again.

      If by these statements Root is guilty of anything, it is of pretending to read other people’s minds, either the President, or the police in Ferguson. If he has evidence that either one of his ideas is true, then he should present it.

      And although Root does, “antagonize a person of a different race,” in his statements, without a presumption of superiority, that is NOT racism. So concluding that Root is a racist, or that there is a “clearly racist portion of the libertarian movement,” based on his statements is non-sensible.

      To draw those conclusions requires making the same error that Root makes, namely to believe that one is a mind reader. Are you a mind reader Mr. Cavanaugh?


    • jeff

      Its not racist to not instantly side with media bandwagons and twitter journalism. It is racist however , to tell white people they “dont understand” why the black community cannot behave itself because those white people have never felt oppression. Its an empty argument built on the foundations of cultural marxism, or victim culture. Its essentially “you cant have an opinion on this because you are white , and if you do have an opinion, you are a racist”. I reject this logic. If black people actually gave a shit about their communities , they would do something about it. Yet year after year , they DONT. billions are poured into welfare and college grants. And year after year it seems we are still dealing with the same upset black community who thinks the world is against them while they perpetuate violent law breaking cultural norms and label you racist if you point out it might be having an effect on the youth.

      We dont know the specifics of what happened with micheal brown. But what we do know is that he fucking robbed a store minutes before this incident took place. Color me “Racist” if I can logically deduce somebody who will violently rob somebody would also not act appropriately in a police stop.

      If you are black and you are reading this. Pay attention , this is why white people dont get arrested. When a police officer stops you. Dont say “i din do nuffin” repeatedly. Dont try to avoid the police officer. Greet him with a hello. If he asks you questions , answer them. If he searches you , let him search you. If you resist at any point , the situation will ALWAYS head south. If you think you are being unjustly stopped, now is not the time to deal with it. Let him finish and afterward if you are still bothered , sue him.

      • Darcy Baxter

        You’re no racist, for sure. Your just a nice guy who thinks some people should exercise their rights, and others should know their place and keep their mouths shut. The only thing you left out was, ‘look at the officer when he’s talking to you, boy’.

        • John

          Another racist posting accusations of racism as a substitute for critical thinking.

          • Crewldude

            Critical thinking from these low-functioning cretins? Dream on!

      • Synchronicity

        “I reject this logic. If black people actually gave a shit about their communities , they would do something about it.”
        They did.
        That is what the riot was.

        • jeff

          Really? burning down their own neighborhood seems intelligent. Certainly this is the best way to fix problems in your community.

          • Synchronicity

            I didn’t say it was the best response or whatnot — but it was one particular way to respond (and not entirely illogical in the broader context of a culture built upon structural violence).
            If one issue was “police keep killing us” then it would seem like one of the available solutions is to kick the police out (whether that is the best solution is up for debate, I guess). But the functional purpose of the police as an institution — social control — probably wouldn’t ever let that happen without a legitimate fight/struggle, or at least a riot/insurrection to get things moving. And we saw that, to an extent.

      • Mike Brown

        Hello. I am black. You are a racist buffoon, and what is hilarious/sad is that you probably think what you posted is perfectly erudite. That word “logic” does not mean what you think it does.

        • jeff

          It would be fantastic if you attempted to prove me wrong instead of looking up fancy vocabulary words and claiming I dont know what logic means.

          • Mike Brown

            Apparently you don’t know how this works….

            No Jeff…you see you are the one who needs to provide proof of what you have posted….which you have not done. Again…You are are a racist buffoon. Like most racists, you spew unsubstantiated nonsense about a group of people you know nothing about….and display absolutely no grasp of peer reviewed history and social science.

            • jeff

              the “social science” you are referring to was invented by communists to destroy society to allow revolution to take place. Google it.As for the rest of your post its typical collegiate cookie cutter liberal strawmans

              • Mike Brown

                …Yeah…because the entire field is a member of a communist plot to screw over….America/Capitalism….etc….and you are the only one who has scene through it’s corrupt veil…..care to back this up?

              • Mike Brown

                The Social Sciences…which had their start in the early 1600’s (a bit early for communism that did not appear until the 1800’s) is in fact a branch of sciences that include:
                political science

                So you mean to tell me that all of these sciences that have successfully been used to study and predict trends in their respective domains where just made up out of thin air by communists for the sole purpose of destroying society? LOL whut?

            • John

              The racist is YOU. Apparently YOU don’t know how this works. If you object to what he said, you must explain why it’s wrong, instead of resorting to the Obama formulation of “I’m black and you’re a racist.”

              News Flash: White people are about done with this guilt trip of the Sharptons, Jacksons, Obamas, Holders, etc. Oh, we aren’t saying that racism doesn’t exist, or that there is total equality in society. Far from it. But Black America has zealously embraced that gashole Sharpton’s buffoonish claim that “only whites can be racist.” It gives them an excuse to be the single most racist group in the country, all the while screaming VICTIM! (I’ll give you bonus points if you can correctly identify where Sharpton & Pals learned this trick of screaming racism while being horribly racist themselves.)

              Jeff’s assessment of “cultural Marxism” was spot on. His advice for how to deal with a cop overstepping his bounds was not. While you should always remain polite, so as not to give the cop an excuse to go into “thug with a badge” mode, asking why you’re being stopped, if you’re being detained, what are the charges, and refusing to consent to an unlawful search are long-standing libertarian principles for dealing with an oppressive police state. If you “bow up” on the cop, you give them the excuse they need to go full thug. If you start trying to play word games, they will also take the opportunity to go thug on you. It takes a cool head and critical thinking skills to successfully deal with such a situation. Sadly, critical thinking is one of those things that gets Black people accused of “acting White” if they do it.

              And that’s on YOU, not on me. Deal with it.

              • Mike Brown

                Says the racist buffoon who just implicitly claimed that black people are brainwashed, because…you know…Al Sharpton…that all black people are responsible for the actions of a very small number of their ethnic group, and generally ignores the fact that white people tend to riot much more often than black people, for much more ridiculous reasons.

                Again…you and the rest of this idiots posting here really don’t seem to understand how this works. When you make outlandish claims….you better have peer-reviewed data that backs it up…but of course…like most libertarians…you are perfectly fine with speaking authoritatively about issues at best you only have a very shallow understanding of while pulling unsubstantiated “facts” out of your back-side at will in vain attempts to bolster your position whenever challenged.

                When you start posting on the internet about how white people need to take responsibility for serial killers, mass shooters,white on white crime,and rioting every damn time their college team wins/losses then you might have a point. Did you see what I did there?

              • Mike Brown

                Oh…and John…this is why you are stupid:

                Jeff/John: “I claim that ‘A’ is true”
                me: “Uhm….that’s BS. Please provide sources for such an outrageous claim”
                Jeff/John: “I don’t need to explain myself or my claim! It is up to you to prove me wrong!”

                ^^^^The above is not an acceptable position when conducting research, or in our court system….and the fact that you think this it is does not surprise me at all as you are a libertarian/conservative.

              • Crewldude

                We are fed up with these low-functioning, low IQ posers. No more sidestepping the ridiculous logic and outright stupidity and lack of class, culture and civility. Time to call a spade a spade so to speak. Idiots like Mike Brown whose pathetic attempts at pseudo-intellectualism that only illustrates his complete lack of true intellectual gravitas. Reminds me of the joke about the black guy who shows up to have a vasectomy wearing a tuxedo. When asked why, he replies “if I’m going to be impotent, I’m gonna look impotent”!

        • christian

          You’re “Mike Brown”? Come back from the grave? Or maybe officer Wilson never killed you after all? Was it all a hoax? Designed to promote violence and militarize the police? Maybe you got Obamacare’s gold plan that brought you back to life? When did you come back to life? In the morgue, like those people who sit up in the casket? Or did you just put some red sauce over your body and pretend to be shot?

          Obamacare might be much better than we ever thought. But once you come back after you’re dead, can you collect SSI? Or does the government consider you dead still? This might explain all those dead voters who voted Democratic in past elections, especially Chicago. You could be dead and still alive? I thought only Jesus and Lazarus did this sort of return to life? Mike Brown, a miracle in our own time. Amazing. did you have any of those after death experiences, a bright white light, deceased relatives greeting you? But why return to life? Wasn’t it nice enough on the other side? Or did you go to the other place?

          You could go on one of those motivational speakers, inspirational talks, and tell people there’s hope when all appears lost. Maybe start a religion? Call yourself a prophet?

          • Mike Brown

            No moron…my name is actually “Michael Brown”. You know……it happens to actually be a very common name.

    • Puzzled

      Breaking news – libertarians sometimes disagree. More breaking news – anyone who disagrees with a liberal will be called a racist (for the record, I am strongly against police militarization, believe the officer should be charged with murder, and support the protesters – but I don’t shout slurs the second anyone disagrees with me.)

      Question – why is the southern strategy discussed (irrelevant to libertarians) but not, say, Senator Robert Byrd? Surely I could just as easily call out liberals for tolerating racists in their midst. Limousine liberalism relies heavily on racism as well.

      • bobby black

        WHAT??? How can you say you believe the officer should be charged with murder when we don’t even know the outcome of the investigation!?! That is ridiculous! And, the fact that Mike Brown had a charge of second-degree murder on his record, especially coupled with the strong-arming we saw him do to the store owner in the video is MORE than enough reason to believe he very well could have charged the officer as several eye-witnesses claim, and we know he hit him, because the officer had to go to the emergency room, so ANYONE who says the officer should be charged with murder AT THIS POINT is obviously biased and doesn’t care about the facts. It may turn out that he is IS guilty of that, but good grief… whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty in this country!?

        • ak47

          bobby black or whomever you are… you’re a lying sack of al-cracka dogshit to post your crap about Michael Brown having second degree murder charges against…. this is why i truly hate you sorry ass internet hiding al- cracka terrroists… wish I could get my hands on you.

          • Bwhaaaaaaaa

            Shut up, you little dumb Ass Troll! You are a Racist MO Fo! And you say you’d like to get your hands on the poster above you……pfffft….Bwhaaaaaaaa……..Whatever Loser!

    • Conor_Friedersdorf

      I’d like to see an article like this about liberals who support Stop and Frisk.

    • Good job.

    • ed2276

      The author starts his article with a false premise: namely, that there are only two kinds of libertarians. There are libertarians who want to do away with the constitution and all form of statist government; they want to practice voluntarism. Another faction, the minarchists are not opposed to government, just a limitation to the barest form of government necessary. There are other gradations of so-called libertarianism, as well.

    • Edward Bernays

      Article is a Propaganda technique known as a transfer. To transfer peoples negative feelings about racism onto conservatives and libertarians.

    • June Genis

      First and foremost – WAR is NOT a libertarian although he may call himself one. Even Rand calls himself “libertarian-ish” not libertarian. Stossel is the best example of a real libertarian in your whole article.

      If you want to official Libertarian position you should be not be talking to Wayne but to the Libertarian Party. All libertarian objections to the civil rights act stem from the fact that it does not let property owners make their own decisions about so-called public accommodations which true libertarians see as a violation of property rights. It has absolutely nothing to do with race.

      • Angus

        Root is a cock. That in itself wouldn’t be a big issue, except for that embarrassing VP nominee thing… which just proves that the LP will run any statist-in-libertarian’s-clothing with a small amount of name recognition.

        • June Genis

          You’re right, we should have done a better job vetting WAR than we did. But his nomination was not a walk away. He had plenty of detractors. I know. I was a delegate at the convention that nominated him and I voted for None-of-the Above in the final round. But remember the Republicans let McCain choose Palin as a running mate and THEN learn what she was really like. Vetting is a problem for all parties but especially small ones that have a bigger problem finding anyone even willing to run. Running is prestigious in a big party. Its a lot of hard wok in a small one.

        • Joe Baldwin

          2008 was a very bad year for the LP candidates. I regret my Bob Barr ballot.

          • Mike Rollins

            In 2008 we had two potential Libertarian Presidential candidates with fully credible resumes. Mike Gravel, unfortunately, was a bit past his prime. Barr at least new how to repeat the appropriate talking points. It was unfortunate that neither Barr, nor Root is a totally sincere libertarian, but prior to the convention they both made a good show of it.

    • joe

      Yeah, because anybody who posts on Reason’s page must automatically be a libertarian. As far as I know they allow people of all political persuasions to post freely.

      • Michael DiSciullo

        He didn’t even check out Hit and Run, but Reason’s FB page? What a stupid thing to do. Anyone who even reads one article might comment on such a hot-button issue.

      • guest

        Reich mir die Hand… Gott mit uns!