Not a fan of the "no true libertarian" fallacy. It's a pluralistic ideology. But there can be no doubt that thinking it's appropriate to use the government to direct private trade towards your own ends is not libertarian and should preclude Trump from using "we" here.
RT @realDonaldTrump
Thank you LIBERTARIANS. We are getting it all done, and FAST! VOTE TRUMP!!!

I assume everyone descrying Savannah Guthrie because her husband works in left-wing politics also wanted Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from ruling on Obamacare because his wife was an activist. Or, did we then rightly recognize that people are autonomous of their spouses?

RT @gabrielmalor
Whenever someone says Facebook is a monopoly, ask them: a monopoly on what?

What exactly does Facebook have that you can't get anywhere else? And the answer when you force them to actually drill down is: "er . . . well, Facebook." That's not what a monopoly is, folks.

This is modern-day McCarthyism and it is grotesque. Particularly from someone like Cruz, who once upon a time understood that private companies should not be answerable to the moral judgment of government, particularly for legal actions. It's monarchical.
RT @cspan
Sen. @tedcruz: "Twitter is actively blocking, right now this instant, stories from the New York Post...on Tuesday, the Judiciary Committee, the full committee, will be voting …

This response, not the histrionics of people like Ben Shapiro, are the proper one. It respects both freedom and the intelligence of the citizenry. It also recognizes that naked partisanship tends to drive people to seek alternate sources of information.

Show thread

If there be still improprieties which this rule would not restrain, its supplement must be sought in the censorship of public opinion."

Show thread

...false reasonings and opinions, on a full hearing of all parties; and no other definite line can be drawn between the inestimable liberty of the press and its demoralizing licentiousness...

Show thread

...facts and opinions. Between true statements and baseless allegations: "since truth and reason have maintained their ground against false opinions in league with false facts, the press, confined to truth, needs no other legal restraint; the public judgment will correct...

Show thread

Thomas Jefferson was among the presidents who faced an intense smear campaign from papers unfriendly to him. He addressed this in his second inaugural address. Not by calling for regulation of the press, but by complimenting the ability of the citizenry to discern between...

Show thread

Papers have historically aligned themselves with parties/candidates. The idea that social media's restriction on the sharing of information is a "weapon" intended to interfere in elections in a manner without precedent in U.S. history is absurd.

That people now think "censorship" means being unable to share something on social media, rather than being fined, arrested or beaten up for speech government disapproves of shows just how strong free speech really is in this country.

The NY Post's Biden story is freely available on the paper's website, so let's stop pretending that stopping sharing of the link is the equivalent to blocking access to it. Private companies have the right, however foolishly, to block information from appearing on their platform.

Anyone who thinks that the proliferation of misinformation unique to the digital age is clearly not a student of history. In this country, in particular, look at how James T. Callender treated Thomas Jefferson and how those myths persist today.

The conservative dark money web is so good at getting justices into office who will support the Republican agenda no matter what that Trump's appointees ruled against him on the tax cases, DACA and LGBTQ+ protections last term.

The confirmation of a justice whose opinions you don't like does not mean on confirmation all the laws they might rule against spontaneously disappear. That's not how the court system works and the hysteria that assumes it is needs to stop.

This is a sentiment I really hate. The idea that having opinions renders people's capacity for objective thinking mute is a really nasty and pernicious one. Fully fleshed out, it means people can't govern themselves. Troubling if you believe in limited government.
RT @CNNPolitics
Amy Coney Barrett says she owns a gun, but could fairly judge a case on gun rights

I'm unclear how exactly keeping with SCOTUS' interpretation of the Second Amendment (that it protects the individual's right to bear arms) is an "unsuccessful legal framework." It's literally what the highest court in the nation has said is the law.
RT @Everytown
In an exchange with Sen. Feinstein about the Heller case, Amy Coney Barrett indicated that her approach to considering gun cases would rely on historical interpretations of …

Perhaps if more people were doggedly focused on policy than the damn fly on Pence's head in the VP debate candidates wouldn't be so comfortable saying things like "You'll find out my view on court packing the day after the election."

Really don't understand the timing of the 25th Amendment commission Pelosi intends to introduce today. How does that do anything other than give Trump an easy "the left is unhinged and will stop at nothing to get rid of me" talking point and drive people out to vote for him?

There is procedural democracy and there is substantive democracy. The first is always bad (majority always rules) and the second is only sometimes good. The U.S. is not a substantive democracy and only uses procedural democracy in some of its institutions.

Show older

Liberdon is a Mastodon instance for libertarians, ancaps, anarchists, voluntaryists, agorists, etc to sound off without fear of reprisal from jack or zuck. It was created in the wake of the Great Twitter Cullings of 2018, when a number of prominent libertarian accounts were suspended or banned.