04 Jan 2013

Why Aren’t There More Libertarian Girls?

Bryan Caplan, Libertarianism, Steve Horwitz, Tom Woods 249 Comments

Oh wow, this issue is exploding. Tom Woods expresses his feelings, and Bryan Caplan weighs in. In case you haven’t seen it, this is the video that annoyed Steve Horwitz and Sarah Skwire:

I am going to offer some quick thoughts. But first, a disclaimer: I am not going to keep writing “in general” or “for the most part” or “have a tendency to.” Obviously, this post will be full of sweeping generalizations. Don’t stereotype-shame me in the comments!

==> I rushed to Julie’s defense, not because I care about the particular issues over which others are arguing, but because (a) I’m her “Facebook friend” so I automatically was defensive and (b) I know what a pain it is to make videos like that. If you’ve never done it, you really have no idea. It would take me probably 6 hours to get something approximating the above. Oops, was your iPhone turned on? Well you gotta do it all over, because now there’s a buzzing in the audio. So, knowing how much effort she is putting into these things, and seeing exactly the little details and tricks she uses to build up her fan base, it is crazy when I was reading comments on FB etc. from people making completely asinine “suggestions” that would ensure no one watches her videos again.

==> Julie is cranking out videos that consistently get more than 10k views, and she talks about “the Budget Control Act of 2011” and “Title IX.” She makes it cool to rip on Republicans for being for “small government” and yet freaking out over defense cuts. If you have never worked in a Think Tank environment, you don’t undersand how important that is. There could be a bunch of people all secretly thinking that, but if a few loudmouths set the tone about “that wuss Obama weakening our national defense!” then they’ll keep quiet. That’s why I am so happy with her video series.

==> The people saying, “I would never send that video to my non-libertarian friends!” are totally missing the point. This video is aimed at LIBERTARIANS. That’s why at the end she says her strategy is “how we win.”

==> If you say, “OK Bob, but then why the rant about the big purse? Why did she put lipstick all over her face? Why doesn’t she just read from cue cards with a stick up her butt?” I refer you again to her Views.

==> Julie is part of a broader trend that delights me. People are making it cool to talk about politics and economics. That’s why I adore Jon Stewart. If you told me in 2000 1998 that a comedian would have a very successful show, largely based on running clips of Fox News and making fun of speeches taken from the Congressional floor, I would have said you were nuts. Just like, if you had told me I’d one day be giving a talk at an event in Nashville with a bunch of musicians who hated the Fed, and where there were 23-year-olds smoking pot in their car beforehand listening to a black guy’s remix of Ron Paul speeches, I would have really thought you were nuts.

==> Right now, for whatever reason, it is cool in our culture to be a progressive. That’s why Matt Damon is being hailed for his anti-fracking movie, whereas Clint Eastwood is mocked for his views. Since libertarians (in our minds) are actually the ones who “know the street” and have the inside scoop on rich guys screwing everybody over, we should be the intellectuals to whom the cool kids turn when they want to learn how the world works. But they don’t trust us right now, because we are boring and out of touch.

==> Having said all that, I actually don’t think this issue–i.e., the need to make libertarianism cool in the popular culture–has much to do with girls not being in the movement. That I think is more explained, by the fact that girls don’t like to argue as much as guys do.

==> Lots of guys like science fiction, and some girls do too. But if I post on my Facebook status, “Who would win in a fight? The Enterprise (Galaxy Class) or a Super Star Destroyer?” it is going to be all guys, except for an occasional girl who makes fun of us for being such dorks. Notice, if I said, “Who could provide the most assistance to a space station with a flu outbreak?” no guy would care. But when I make it about a fight, now we’re interested.

==> So, right now libertarianism as a movement is like my question about the Enterprise vs. the Super Star Destroyer. “Suppose you had a fractional reserve bank versus a 100% reserve bank in a world with no government. Who wins?” Hell yeah, I’m going to make lifelong enemies debating that question. But most girls are going to think, “You guys are dorks.”

==> I think it would be interesting to study Marxism, because there are clearly sectarian squabbles there, but there are a bunch of women in it. So somebody explain that to me. I am quite sure I’m hitting something important above, but it’s not decisive since I can’t explain Marxism.

==> Last point: Say I’m right or wrong, but this is why I “make such an ass” of myself on the Internet. Sometimes I get the impression that certain critics think I got drunk and accidentally posted a video of myself in the bathroom taunting Krugman. Maybe that’s a dumb strategy, or maybe it’s brilliant, but please spare me the lecture, “Bob, don’t you realize that you don’t sound like a stuffy academic? Why would Harvard invite you to guest lecture next year with this video floating around?” Give me a break.

249 Responses to “Why Aren’t There More Libertarian Girls?”

  1. Richard Carey says:

    I think you’re both right. Those who criticised Julie should get off their backsides and give a better analysis, if they can.

    • Matt Tanous says:

      I find it ironic that the very same people claiming that women are just as rational/not more emotional in their thinking ALSO apparently believe that if you offend them, they are unable to move past that and examine the rational basis for various positions unrelated to that. So apparently women are not really emotional, except all the times they are emotional.

      • Daniel Kuehn says:

        This is a good point.

        In one of Steve’s recent facebook posts where he blows up about something related to this, Sarah Skwire actually comments and says “don’t worry – that didn’t bother me all that much”. Kind of speaks to your point.

        Surprise – people don’t always phrase or fame everything they say perfectly. Hopefully we are better at separating out the wheat from the chaff.

      • martin says:

        Well, it could be that women are equal to men in their (in)ability to move past being offended, but libertarians offend them more than men.

        • Matt Tanous says:

          People, of both genders, work past being offended all the time in other areas. I know I was initially offended by certain members of the liberty movement.

          And my point was that their “non-sexist” analysis is actually incredibly sexist.

          • martin says:

            People, of both genders, work past being offended all the time in other areas.

            Sure, but that doesn’t mean all people will work past being offended in each and every case.

            And my point was that their “non-sexist” analysis is actually incredibly sexist.

            And my point was that it isn’t necessarily sexist, since it doesn’t depend on women having more trouble working past being offended. The difference could be that libertarians are more offensive towards women than to men.

  2. jon dough says:

    Julie and Bob rock. Love you guys…

  3. Derek Spicer says:

    Awesome! Just awesome! I completely agree

    And for the record a Super Star Destroyer would kick so much ass! The Dark Side is stronger!

    • Major_Freedom says:

      Except when it is defeated.

  4. ChacoKevy says:

    ==> The people saying, “I would never send that video to my non-libertarian friends!” are totally missing the point. This video is aimed at LIBERTARIANS. That’s why at the end she says her strategy is “how we win.”

    But she released it to the world, liberals included. If I were a liberal culture warrior, I would say, “Thank you for the libertarian self-destruct sequence. Your chances of peeling off liberal women will detonate in 3…2…1…”

    • Don Kenner (@DonKenner) says:

      >If I were a liberal culture warrior, I would say, “Thank you for the libertarian self-destruct sequence. Your chances of peeling off liberal women will detonate in 3…2…1…”<

      And you'd be wrong, like most liberal cultural warriors. Taming your presentation to appeal to the hard core among a group you have very little chance of converting is a terrible way expand your base and spread your message. People who are open to the ideas of liberty and who are not humorless automatons will respect what Julie Borowski did. The others don't matter; their ideas are born of ignorance and put in practice through force.

      And the problem with BHLs is that they ARE liberal culture warriors. That's why they bitch so much when someone (gasp!) talks about gender in a way other than what they proscribe.

      • Bob Roddis says:

        So I guess this means that for another 40 years we’re going to continue to hide from the southern evangelical types that under An-Cap that they would be able to live in voluntary private evangelical neighborhoods with evangelical schools and evangelical cable TV and never encounter or subsidize a secular “progressive”, doper or even a non-believer.

        It wouldn’t be prudent. Or hip.

        • guest says:

          … that under An-Cap that they would be able to live in voluntary private evangelical neighborhoods …

          Please wake up, Social Conservatives?

    • Bharat says:

      It’s easier to reach more libertarians by releasing it “to the world” than by trying to make an e-mail list out of JUST libertarians and then sending it to them.

      The 5 liberals that watch her video will surely be annoyed, but I don’t think that’s going to matter in the long run in comparison to the libertarians who are influenced by it (assuming she’s right in her hypothesis).

      • ChacoKevy says:

        It’s actually what you said in the parenthesis that was the basis of my criticism. I agree with what Horwitz and Skwire said: Julie’s analysis is wrong.
        It’s why I don’t really get Bob’s defense either. Are we supposed to excuse the content because there is obvious production value? Never mind what she said because she is trying really hard?
        Remember: it’s not the liberals who were annoyed by this video, it’s other libertarians.

        • xgsmmy says:

          I’m a liberal.

          What’s interesting to me is that she’s a social conservative and former Republican.

          So you might ask why it is that someone in that demographic became a libertarian and follower of Ron Paul rather than Ralph Nader, Chris Hedges, or Noam Chomsky, (Just throwing out names.)

          And since the Republicans have a problem with women and various other groups, is it any wonder that libertarians have a problem with those same groups.

          • Ken B says:

            “I’m a liberal”

            Just as long as you’re not a Lincoln fan!

          • Matt Tanous says:

            “And since the Republicans have a problem with women and various other groups, is it any wonder that libertarians have a problem with those same groups.”

            Libertarians are not Republicans. They do not have the same ideas, they are not the same people, and they don’t have the same approaches to social situations.

            “Former Republican” is an irrelevant label.

            • xgsmmy says:

              Matt, I think you’ve managed to completely miss the point of my comment.

              It would be helpful though if you’d actually cite some evidence for your sweeping assertions. Or lacking evidence at least share your reasoning.

              But I beg you to please first try to understand why I said what I did.

              If republicans and not democrats are becoming “libertarians” then I find that interesting.

              • Matt Tanous says:

                “It would be helpful though if you’d actually cite some evidence for your sweeping assertions.”

                Uh, really? I have to prove that George Bush and other mainstream Republicans aren’t libertarians? Really? Do you think Mitt Romney is a libertarian?

                “If republicans and not democrats are becoming “libertarians” then I find that interesting.”

                Why is libertarian in quotes? Also, I know just as many, if not more, libertarians that started as anti-war leftists than those that were free market right-wingers.

              • Richie says:

                I know just as many, if not more, libertarians that started as anti-war leftists than those that were free market right-wingers.

                Just take a visit to the comments section of any conservative website. One will see the love that conservatives have for libertarians. So much love that libertarians are probably hated more than liberals. In fact, conservatives claim that not much of a difference exists between liberals and libertarians.

              • xgsmmy says:

                Matt, it’s not just that some Republicans like Grover Norquist might be closet libertarians, but that modern libertarians might be closet Republicans or at least not really libertarians as libertarians are apparently logically committed to abolishing the state and democracy. That’s why libertarian is in quotes. To the extent it’s a rebranding or remarketing of the party or a means to an end.

                If a libertarian might use the constitution as a means to an end even though ultimately they’d wish to abolish it, then a republican might use “libertarianism” as a means to an end too, even though they’re still a statist.

                As far as your formerly leftist friends, I thinking more along the lines of verifiable people, but I’d imagine there were more leftist derived llibertarians in the past. (Athough, again, the question of their consistency is raised. They may just like Noam Chomsky and so brand themselves as libertarian socially and vote for Democrats or Greens.)

                It seems obvious to me that libertarianism is currently aligned most with Republicans (whether ideologically or strategically).

                I do think there will be a political realignment and I’m so I’m thinking about what that may look like.

              • xgsmmy says:

                I meant to say that the current popular libertarian movement seems to be aligned most with Republicans.

                It’s not like there are no popular anti-war leftists: Chris Hedges, Naomi Klein, Michael Moore, Oliver Stone, Richard Stallman are five.

                Hedges even has a lawsuit against Obama over the NDAA that bothers young libertarians so much.

              • Richie says:

                I meant to say that the current popular libertarian movement seems to be aligned most with Republicans.

                Uh huh. Being a liberal, you do not run in Republican circles. If you did, you would know that Republicans despise libertarians. You’re a waste of time.

              • xgsmmy says:

                RIchie, and libertarians claim the same thing about democrats and conservatives.

                I think that’s some of the appeal for many Ron Paul libertarians, though, that everyone hates them or that they’re victims or something or media is out to get them. (Some of which is probably true, but people on the left have the same problems.)

                It reminds me of my experience with “New Atheists”. Part of the marketing is the idea that atheists are a distrusted and discriminated minority. (Again, some of which may be true.) But both groups followers seem to have adopted similar styles of argumentation.

              • xgsmmy says:

                Uh huh. Being a liberal, you do not run in Republican circles. If you did, you would know that Republicans despise libertarians. You’re a waste of time.

                Richie, please spare me the hostility.

                Even if actual Republican go around bad mouthing libertarians it says nothing of their ideological alignment.

                Krugman can hippie punch the MMT kids but still say for the purposes of the current debate they’re on the same side.

              • Bharat says:

                I’m a former Democrat.

                There are many cases of both former Republicans and former Democrats becoming libertarians.

                Ideological similarites exist on both sides. Republicans (at least say they) believe in small government, esp. for economic values and Democrats don’t want to use government to force people to adopt certain social values.

  5. Maria M. says:

    I agree – Julie and Bob rock! However, I don’t think the question about the fractional reserve banking is “dorky” – it’s interesting. I pretty much agree about the starship question…dorky.

    • Bob Murphy says:

      Typical woman.

      • Matt Tanous says:

        For the record, Bob, the Enterprise would win. The Super Star Destroyer is far too slow to fight the Enterprise. It’s made for assaulting planetary systems, not fighting individual ships.

        Ironically, all the women I have met in person that were at least interested in discussing the topic of liberty were also incredibly nerdy/geeky. In short, they were basically the best kind of girl there is.

        • Bob Murphy says:

          Are the TIE fighters all in the shop?

          • Matt Tanous says:

            TIE fighters are notoriously ineffective. Didn’t you notice how many crashed into things while chasing the much larger Millennium Falcon through hard-to-maneuver areas? Just like the stormtroopers and their inability to hit the broad side of a barn.

        • Dean T. Sandin says:

          The Enterprise would defeat a Super Star Destroyer? And three guys with AK-47s in a canoe would defeat an aircraft carrier, right?

          • Matt Tanous says:

            A canoe is not maneuverable. The Enterprise is. We’re talking more like an aircraft carrier being taken out by a well-piloted F-22.

            • Dean T. Sandin says:

              And you think that’s likely?

            • Tel says:

              If only the aircraft carrier was carrying something that could fly out and intercept the F-22, something small and fast that could be deployed as necessary.

              Hmmm, let me thing about this, there’s an answer to it I’m sure.

              • Matt Tanous says:

                Tie Fighters are about 6 meters long. The Enterprise is over 600 meters long. The Tie Fighter would not be an analogue to an intercept fighter, but a gnat.

              • Tel says:

                Sorry, I got to talking about aircraft carriers for a while there.

        • Bryan Pick says:

          I came for the political discussion, but I must offer the last word on Star Trek vs. Star Wars tech just to put it to rest: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/FiveMinutes.html

          • Tel says:

            I love to see a website get their physical units in order, good show. More economists should study this.

            So the quick answer is that even a trivial Star Wars ship could slap the Enterprise like a fly, because the tech was just that much better in every aspect.

            Mind you, the implication of the distances involved in Star Wars is that unaided visual recognition of enemy ships would be impossible, yet the movies showed people staring out through windows. Presumably all humans had been genetically modified with astounding ocular upgrades, and that was just presumed background knowledge for the story.

            In other words, Star Trek goes to some lengths to be marginally plausible, whereas Star Wars goes to no effort at all.

        • Bill Dalasio says:

          Baloney! The Super Star Destroyer was pretty well protected defensively against large crafts (e.g. the Enterprise). It’s real vulnerability was to light tactical fighters (e.g. the X-wing). And the Enterprise seemed quite deficient in that regard.

        • successfulbuild says:

          “Ironically, all the women I have met in person that were at least interested in discussing the topic of liberty were also incredibly nerdy/geeky. In short, they were basically the best kind of girl there is.”

          Well, maybe Matt Tanous can finally find a girl to play Super Nintendo with in his mother’s basement.

          • Matt Tanous says:

            I take offense to that. My girl and I were playing Super Nintendo in my apartment just the other day.

          • Joseph Fetz says:

            A programmer making fun of a gamer? This *is* the Twilight Zone!

            • Joseph Fetz says:

              The only difference between the basement of a programmer and the basement of a gamer is that in the case of the programmer Mom’s name isn’t on the dead.

  6. neil says:

    Bob, have you seen “Praxeology Girl” on youtube? I’ve never watched more than 1/2 of one episode. I have learned a great deal from reading your stuff, but I hate to tell you–she is slightly easier to watch on video than you.

    Big fan. Love to read your stuff.

  7. Dennis says:


    • Luke says:

      For the record, this is the most accurate depiction of what would happen if the Enterprise encountered a Super Star Destroyer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFCBwob65Nw

      • Bob Murphy says:

        That was awesome. What episode of TNG was that? I never saw that one, and I thought I had watched them all…

        • Luke says:

          Might’ve been the one where they kept skipping to parallel universes.

          There’s plenty of lost footage floating around from that one, though. Search for “Star Trek edits” or “DJO” for further awesome.

        • Luke says:

          btw sorry, I replied to the wrong comment for my original post; I meant to reply to Derek Spicer up above. This comments system seems laid out strangely.

      • Christopher says:

        That bedroom is all I need!

  8. Jason Hommel says:

    See Libertarian Ann on facebook, and see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5T5ILpdZCU These ladies are libertarians, and they are also very hot!

    • Libertarian Ann says:

      Aww thanks Jason. Opps never mind, I thought you were referring to one of my videos about Libertarian Women being everywhere! BTW hope yall noticed it was the women who wouldn’t give up on ron paul till the very end and like in Tampa…. man, they were the ones the media hated.

    • guest says:

      And see Amanda BillyRock convert from a Minarchist to a Super Saiyan:

      Difference Between Minarchist and Anarchist?

  9. Matt Tanous says:

    “I think it would be interesting to study Marxism, because there are clearly sectarian squabbles there, but there are a bunch of women in it. So somebody explain that to me. I am quite sure I’m hitting something important above, but it’s not decisive since I can’t explain Marxism.”

    I think Caplan hit on an important point there. Men are far more likely to focus on the rational argument for an idea, whereas women are systematically more concerned about the emotional “arguments” (i.e. “you should feel bad for supporting X”). I don’t think that is an inherent characteristic that must be so – I’ve known girls that were more focused on logical analysis, and men that were more interested in emotional “reasoning”.

    In particular, I find that there are quite a lot of men within the AnCap community that fall into emotional bias when dealing with parenting children, for some reason. It’s all quite interesting.

    • successfulbuild says:

      Well, perhaps Mr. “I use the the Proof of Euclidean Geometry” can actually name some Libertarian logicians. Mises was not a logician, and Hoppes work has been described even by fellow Libertarians as the only book ever written where “every argument was a logical fallacy.” Do you know who the most famous logician from Israel is?

    • Daniel Kuehn says:

      It’s funny that you think libertarians are more rational and less emotional than Marxists.

      • Richie says:

        I think it’s funny that you think you know everything about libertarians, when you know absolutely nothing about them.

        • Daniel Kuehn says:

          That’s funny because I don’t think I know everything about them and you’re almost certainly wrong that I know nothing.

          So you’re batting 0 for 2 already. I’d quite while you’re ahead.

          • Daniel Kuehn says:


            • Richie says:

              No thanks, I’ll keep going, King of Double Standard.

              • Ken B says:

                Buzzy. Daniel is actually King of Double Daylight Savings. I thought everyone knew that.

      • Matt Tanous says:

        I had one literally tell me that it was more important how a philosophy makes you FEEL, rather than whether it is completely true. So, yeah.

    • xgsmmy says:

      What’s the emotional bias when dealing with children? Maybe Julie should make some videos about how both parties are so dumb for thinking parents have to feed their kids.

  10. Christopher says:


    I don’t think anyone critizied Julie for her efforts. It was her personal stye conveying the message that turned peope off.

  11. Libertarian Ann says:

    Umm I think there are more than you guys realize. I want to see the stats. I have been tracking the stats since 2007 of male to female support of Ron Paul. Now that is pretty close to Libertarian enough. By my count it is growing more every year. By little campaigns we do like the “real women shoose ron paul” shirts that 2,000 women in the U/s a ll had (if only we had the broadcast time) I host a radio show specifically to get more women into the linbertarian movement EVERY NIGHT for 2 years. The Libertarian principles are what I was missing in my life. None of the individual responsibility was taught to me growing up in the Bible belt, it was all deny your self stuff. When I was raped after college (long story, had a daughter and placed for adoption, thats when I found Ron Paul because my rights had been taken by the adoption agency without my consent. I know many women that I wake up this way through my non profit, and by basically adressing the issues that you men talk about but from a totally different standpoint. Sometimes I don’t think you guys know just how different a perspective we have on EVERYTHING. In a good way, it’s more of a right brain mentality if you ask me, based on past few years. I have talked about this alot over the years. I told of how my first Libertarian meetup group I cried after cause hte men lacked social skills or (well Im tired, but I’ll just say there is so much more to this than what you guys have discussed here. I am glad you care. Sometimes I wonder if it is more because these guys want non statist women to date… than for our impact we could have on the movement. We’ve been here. It’s just kinda hard to get any respect in this arena without proving yourself first, I just had to get used to being called a ditz, until guys took the time to actually listen to my show. Maybe if you “listen more” we will emerge. So many theories behnd this. I wrote an article one time recently about it. I should find that. This is also why I’d have Carol Paul on the show so much, she really got the libertarian principles too, and applied it to her family. So many sites I have like http://libertariangirls.com (editing) http://girls4ronpaul.com Facebook pages for every Liberty women thing ya can think of http://facebook.com/ronpaulgirl The radio show is on every night from 12 am CST -3AM (Thats 10 PM for some people) and if Iif you ever want to discuss more jsut call #3472020391 to listen in or talk. or go to http://blogtalkradio.com/ronpaulgirl or http://m/libertarianann.com Not trying to promote myself (my real name isnt Libertarian) just trying to retype the same thing here that I do other places, but my hand is sore from typing all day. Basically there are SO MANY ways to get women involved. Maybe just ask some women, and not all men. I love you libertarian guys, but you gotta admit you are pretty rough around the edges usually and highly skeptical about any female that look “OK” and talks about property right, eviction, or anything. There are plenty of us out there. The reasons for not coming forward, well I imagine they are waiting to see how you respond to the ones you have now. Don’t judge a book by it’s cover, PLEASE! I cant believe how many apologies I get months after someone finds me. It’s always the same thing. I’m sorry I misjudged you or made fun of you (and Im like you did?) and they say, yes. You are blah blah blah… Just give us a fair shot, we need some serious debate and won’t sit around and watch when men are not taking the thought to the next level. I mean just a little right brain thinking, “irrationality” perhaps or “imagination” could … ok too tired to write. I’m a Libertarian and I’m a girl (at least until I turn 30, which is soon, then call me and old hag 🙂 Goodnight. Someone had to post this link and email it to me… I think I did not do the post justice with this crappy comment. I need to copy and paste this Its somewhere…. Women are naturally more libertarian (think about personal not externally) when they are just introduced to it once. So I want some more stats….. Sorry about my spelling. I’m more an anarchist than anything and I think the statist dictionary and spelling is overrated! JK jsut lazy.

    • Bob Murphy says:

      Hey, Libertarian Ann, thanks for all the comments. Not sure if you were referring to me when you said “maybe that’s why you never heard of me,” but yes I’ve heard of you. 🙂

      And I realized the whole debate was making it sound like there were 4 female libertarians, when in reality there are a lot. But, this is a traditional thing that libertarian guys like to argue about, for all the wrong reasons. (I.e. they want to meet someone at a conference.) But, I wanted to argue with what other guys were saying, because…I like to argue.

      • Libertarian Ann says:

        I like you Bob. I saw you’re karaoke moves. Only cool people sing like that! So surprised to see that on mises playlist… lol

      • guest says:

        (I.e. they want to meet someone at a conference.)

        My guess would be that the vast majority of guys would go to a libertarian conference to discuss the arguments for liberty rather than to meet someone; but that if there happen to be women there then of course we’re going to be checking them out. We’re men.

        • Tel says:

          Oh come now.

          Libertarian men should be going to conferences in order to selflessly advance the movement, and discuss theory. When it comes to settling down and starting a family they should be looking around for a nice, stable Statist girl who understands authority.

          • Libertarian Ann says:

            I like where your head is… JK. lol U might have a point, some men may want to reconsider….

          • Bharat says:

            Libertarian guys into femdom like statist girls?

            • guest says:

              Ya, but they’ll take their clothes off to spite The Man.

  12. Libertarian Ann says:

    I forgot http://youtube.com/girls4ronpaul My mission was to show the world that you didnt have to have naked models with superimposed images of Libertarian philosophy on them. there are plenty of us that can … you get the message.

    Also the older women I talk to 9not much older, in there 30’s or 40’s they are at home with the kids. When anything comes up in the “activisim” area I would alway go cause well I tried to get around as “ron paul girl” then as much as possible. (If only Benton were not there, lol) Anyway the women are like “tell them this and this and this for me, Stand up for us women back at home” etc.. Cause the liberal/left women are bigger whiners than a libertarian woman. so first of your not looking deep enough and your just catching the noise surrounding the other “feminist” type. It’s all really wonderful and easy to explain when I’m speaking about it on air. I suck at writing. Thats prob why you never heard of me till now. Or whoever. I love my libertarian girls. They are the non-caty ones that see everyone has a place and a role and not trying to fight for places. We are just more chill, so you need to just look and ask more…. maybe. Its too late. Had to say something, cause wow it’s been a long hard 2 years, but worth it. If I didnt have things happen in my life like the rape, etc, id prob be married and not have time to have done any of this. Imagine all the women who could find freedom and a release form the f’ed up world in libertarianism. It’s the only sanity we have left sometimes, and it’s a retreat for any woman that remembers how life looked as a child, before indoctrination.

    • xgsmmy says:

      it’s a retreat for any woman that remembers how life looked as a child, before indoctrination.

      So childhood when your parents are taking care of you is what libertarianism looks like?

      And I just watched a video called “A Sample of all the Girls who Love Ron Paul on YouTube” that has parents telling small children and babies about Ron Paul. So I’m wondering what indoctrination you’re talking about?

      Personally I dont respond anymore if I here” but what about the roads” we have got to progress forward, even if that means leaving some stragglers behind. It’s not public school. It’s reality. And we create it.

      I’m wondering if in libertopia your neighbors and people who own the roads can effectively stop you from ever leaving your house.

      I wonder why libertarians don’t make more videos explaining that logically they’re committed to ending democracy.

      It would be nice if Ron Paul fans admit that logically this is where the non-aggression principle leads.

      • Dan says:

        “I wonder why libertarians don’t make more videos explaining that logically they’re committed to ending democracy.”

        I wonder if you realize how funny comments like these are to libertarians.

        • xgsmmy says:

          I wonder if you realize how funny comments like these are to libertarians.

          I don’t. Please explain it to me. Are you saying it’s funny because it’s so obvious, or that it’s not true?

          • Dan says:

            Nah, I think it is better to have you continue to say things that make me laugh rather than explain to you why what you said is funny.

            • xgsmmy says:

              Well, I think it’s “funny” that in asking libertarian to commit on whether or not they want to end democracy, I get a response from a libertarian telling me he refuses to do so.

              It seems to me libertarians such as yourself are arguing in bad faith and people would do well to be suspicious of people who’d employ such a means to an end.

              • Dan says:

                Alright, I’ll explain the why your comment was funny to me.

                1. Asking a bunch of anarcho-capitalists if they are opposed to democracy is like asking them if they are opposed to rape.

                2. Libertarians tell people all the time they are opposed to democracy. In fact, there is a well known book that Tom Woods credits with making him an anarchist that had democracy in the title. It was called, what for it, Democracy: The God That Failed.

                3. There are a lot of videos of libertarians denouncing democracy.

              • Dan says:

                *wait (not what)

              • Ken B says:

                I eagerly await Rape: The God That Failed

              • xgsmmy says:

                Dan, if you could provide a quote from Tom Woods explicitly saying he wants to end democracy, I’d be obliged.

                But the point is not about obscure people like Walter Block, but whether the everyday libertarian or people like Julie are willing to say they want to end democracy in America and that the future libertarian tribunal will throw those who perpetuate the system in jail or worse.

              • xgsmmy says:

                And look I want to connect this not to internet cranks but specifically to those popular followers of Ron Paul or Gary Johnson who want to “end the Fed” or whatever and claim both parties are exactly the same.

                It’s those people, especially young people, I’d like to see if they’re willing to make these claims.

              • Dan says:


                Tom Woods on Hoppe’s book Democracy: The God That Failed.

                “But the point is not about obscure people like Walter Block, but whether the everyday libertarian or people like Julie are willing to say they want to end democracy in America and that the future libertarian tribunal will throw those who perpetuate the system in jail or worse.”

                I want to end democracy in America. There, I said it. It feels so good to let that out. I mean, I’ve been going around telling everybody I know that I want to abolish the State in all it’s forms, but I wasn’t specifically pointing out how awful democracy is to them. Well, except for the numerous times I suggested Hoppe’s book, and all the other times when asked about democracy and I’ve denounced it as nothing more than mob rule.

                This is really hilarious. You think that self-described anarchists are willing to tell people they hate the State and want to abolish it, but are too scared to admit they hate democracy? You think we are trying to convince people to become anarchists, and only once they become one will we unleash our dirty little secret that we think democracy in America should be abolished? Hilarious.

              • Dan says:

                I just searched for “democracy” on dailypaul.com. There are a ton of posts from ordinary libertarians denouncing democracy. http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Adailypaul.com+democracy

                All you have shown by this ridiculous position, that libertarians don’t want people to know we are against democracy, is that you are ignorant of what libertarians say and believe.

              • xgsmmy says:

                My put my other comment in the wrong place, but that Tom Woods review doesn’t explicitly say he personally want to get rid of democracy.

                There’s nothing contradictory anyway about liking a book and not adopting everything in it or being critical of democracy and wanting to get rid of it.

                And that Google search you linked to does not have “a ton” of posts denouncing democracy. There is really only one with two total comments. All seemingly anonymous.

              • xgsmmy says:

                Note that there seem to many more pro-democracy links for the Daily Paul, which would be strange for a bunch of people who supposedly hate democracy.

              • xgsmmy says:

                Okay, I was wrong about the Daily Paul links. But the people there seem very confused about the what a Republic and a Democracy are.

                They seemed to have adopted Paul’s false dichotomy so that they hate “democracy” but love the constitution which gives them the right to vote or something?

              • Tel says:

                Look, liberty and democracy are to some extent opposing ideals, and a democratic system will always contain some elements of wealth transfer and vote buying.

                However, if you look at parties such as the Liberty and Democracy Party of Australia (LDP for short, sadly now renamed themselves to the Liberal Democrats which brings up all the wrong connotations) you see that they fully accept that they are working from a compromise position, not from an ideological position.

                I don’t personally have a problem with that. Churchill was right on this one, Democracy is the worst system of government, until you have tried the others.

              • Matt Tanous says:

                Your problem is you think that all libertarians must agree on everything and have thought about everything. That is not the case. Many libertarians do support democracy, often because they have not examined it yet.

              • xgsmmy says:

                Well Matt, if some libertarians support something they’re logically committed to opposing, something like democracy, I think it might be a good idea to let them know.

                I wonder if you believe that ignorance of the law, libertarian law or otherwise, is a proper defense.

                Maybe if you’re pacifist like Bob this makes a lot of sense, but if those ignorant libertarians potentially face Walter Block’s tribunal it may be cause for concern.

            • xgsmmy says:

              Dan, I read that review before I asked for a quote as Tom Woods does not explicitly say he wants to end democracy. (Sorry, I should have said so.)

              Plus there’s is nothing necessarily contradictory about thinking democracy is “mob rule” or “hating” it and not wanting to get rid of it.

          • skylien says:

            Well, first that is not true for all libertarians, but only for those who are anarchists. And second it is kinda obvious that anarchists are against government monopoly on force that is “controlled” with any republic democratic system, isn’t it?

            • xgsmmy says:

              skylien, the point is that logically if you follow the non-aggression principle then it doesn’t matter whether you claim to be for democracy or not you committed yourself, whether you realize it or not, to being against it.

              And so Ron Paul people talking about the constitution are arguing in bad faith and are using constitutionalism as a means to an end.

              Now you can say you define libertarianism differently or something, but by then you’ve allowed at least some force or coercion over individuals and property rights and I’d argue are no longer a libertarian in any strict sense, but merely someone who values liberty, whatever that might mean to you.

              So by then we’re all statists haggling over the price.

              • Dan says:

                Ron Paul doesnt favor democracy and has spoken out against it.


                Are you trying to show that you are completely unfamiliar with what libertarians say and believe?

              • xgsmmy says:

                Dan, that Ron Paul article doesn’t come out against democracy (at least explicitly) so I don’t know what you’re smoking.

                All it says is that we’re not an absolute democracy, but presumably a republican democracy. Though, perhaps, he’s setting up a false dichotomy between republic and democracy to send a coded dog whistle to fellow travelers.

                If you allow for some democracy, then presumably we’re all statists haggling over the price.

              • Dan says:

                Seriously, you need to actually do some research into what libertarians believe.

                Here is Ron Paul’s chapter titled Democracy from his book Liberty Defined.


                The fact that you think Ron Paul and libertarians in general hide their views on democracy is beyond absurd.

              • xgsmmy says:

                Dan, do I really need to listen to a 14 minute chapter, now?

                Why doesn’t Ron Paul or Bob write an op-ed saying: “Why Democracy is wrong” or “Why the constitution is illegitimate”.

              • Dan says:

                Wow, you’re too much. Ron Paul devotes an entire chapter to denouncing democracy in a book where he defines what liberty means to him, but that doesn’t count because he should be writing op-eds, as well.

                Alright, thanks for the laughs, but I’m going to do something more productive with my time.

              • xgsmmy says:

                Dan, you posted a Ron Paul link in which you said shows Ron Paul “doesn’t favor democracy and has spoken out against it”.

                I read the link and it doesn’t. Then rather than acknowledge I a had a point or find something obvious you posted a long video. (Not to mention your false claims about your other links regarding Tom Woods and the Daily Paul).

                However in light of your hostility I’ll begrudgingly listen to the video.

              • xgsmmy says:

                Just wanted to note that the video is actually 30 minutes as it’s split into two parts.

                However, at about three minutes he trots out the false dichotomy between a republic and a democracy again and so I can help but think he’s purposely obfuscating his views, genuinely confused or not a libertarian but a statist. (His political affiliation may be called “libertarian” but his philosophy is divorced from it.)

              • Tel says:

                Though, perhaps, he’s setting up a false dichotomy between republic and democracy to send a coded dog whistle to fellow travelers.

                What rubbish. Democracy is the will of 51% of the people. Liberty is what protects the other 49% by placing limits on government power.

              • xgsmmy says:

                Tel, what’s rubbish about what I said?

                Paul’s set up a false dichotomy between republic and democracy so that his followers can claim to be against something called “democracy”.

                And “liberty” doesn’t protect anyone. It’s just a word.

                Ron Paul either wants to ultimately abolish the constitution or he’s just another statist haggling about the price.

            • xgsmmy says:

              It seems to me all consistent libertarians are anarchists,

              But anarchism by itself doesn’t imply there is no state only that you don’t recognize the state as legitimate.

              Being an anarchist doesn’t even mean you recognize the rights of others to be anarchists.

              I imagine some would disagree with this, but to me anarchism is without content and implies a “state of nature” so that anything follows.

              So you could be president of the united states and be an anarchist or in a state prison cell and be an anarchist. It doesn’t mean you want to liberate other people.

              It doesn’t mean you want to abolish democracy, only you don’t recognize the legitimacy of democracy. You may be fine with the current outcome of democracy. Or are happy with it’s effect on other people even if you are a lawbreaker who doesn’t follow it’s rules.

              • skylien says:

                To me it seems you should just read some books of Ron Paul and Rothbard.

                Then please tell me if they are arguing in bad faith, or hide their true goals and try to trick people into things they don’t want to take advantage of them. And I think then you will also better understand why they call themselves anarchists, and the word will fill with some content.

                I also see no problem for an anarchist to try to convince his fellow man at least to adhere to constitutionalism, since he will prefer living in this environment than the actual one, as long as he doesn’t hide his true conviction.

              • xgsmmy says:

                skylien, I agree that libertarianism isn’t contentless.

                I’m saying all libertarians are anarchist, but not all anarchists are libertarians.

                And I agree it’s logically fine for a libertarian anarchist to adhere to constitutionalism if that doesn’t mean recognizes the legitimacy of it.

                However there’s nothing in libertarianism or anarchism that I’m aware of that entails being honest about your commitments.

              • xgsmmy says:

                And I would agree at least from the little I’ve read that Murray Rothbard isn’t arguing bad faith.

                However I’d imagine many followers of Ron Paul would be surprised if they found out he believed the constitution must eventually be abolished and he’s only been using it as means to an end and doesn’t recognize it’s legitimacy.

              • xgsmmy says:

                And look while Rothbard the man may have been honest, it seems many followers of Rothbard are not.

              • skylien says:

                xgsmmy, I can not and will not defend all libertarians. I am sure as with any group there are libertarians who are dishonest assholes.

                Yet I think you may speak from your experience. For my part I can not tell of anyone with whom I had any bad experience so far.

              • skylien says:

                “I’m saying all libertarians are anarchist, but not all anarchists are libertarians.”

                I disagree. Libertarian is much broader term than anarchist. So in my definition, which I think to be the most common one, all anarchists (with which I only refer to anarcho capitalists here) are libertarians, as well as minarchists are libertarians.


              • xgsmmy says:

                skylien, if you’re a minarchist then you’re a statist and we’re just haggling over the price.

                Plus it seemingly (in my view) allows libertarian anarchists to cover up their beliefs. They get to hide behind the minarchists, though perhaps it’s the other way around in some cases.

                The point then is that they need to be separated in order to have a good faith discussion.

              • skylien says:

                Well I just don’t see a big problem here.

                Libertarian is the umbrella term. Anarchist and minarchist defines it closer. As far as people are hiding behind umbrella terms, yes that is not honest, and I don’t defend that.

                Yet it is also clear that you will first explain the broader principles (libertarianism) to people who are not familiar with any of those ideas, and go into the details later. As long as you don’t hide anything, this is absolutely legitimate.

                And yes, even some anarchists think that minarchists are just statists (even if to a lesser degree). (Though that is just playing semantic games with trigger words in my view.)

                And you are right to call out minarchists for being only haggling over the price. Though I might add, it is quite important to haggle.


              • Tel says:

                if you’re a minarchist then you’re a statist and we’re just haggling over the price.

                If you believe in economics, then everything in life comes down to haggling over prices (one way or another).

              • xgsmmy says:

                Tel, the point is that once you’ve allowed that some state is legitimate then it changes the argument significantly so I’m not sure what your point was unless it was a stray observation.

              • Tel says:

                My point is that if you want to go anywhere in the world, you have to do something that works in the world, which is guaranteed to be different to what works in your head.

                At that stage you are going to be just another rational economic man, haggling over prices.

              • xgsmmy says:

                Tel, and again I ask do you have a point regarding the thread regarding statism or are you just dropping by to derail?

              • Tel says:

                You use the term, “just haggling over the price” as an argument to dismiss one particular point of view. It is a rubbish argument, all political positions require negotiation and compromise, so does all physical engineering, planning, design, and pretty much all of human activity.

                It is ridiculous to dismiss someone for not being sufficiently extremist.

              • xgsmmy says:

                Tel, I’m not a libertarian, I want to haggle over the price of statism.

                I’m not rubbishing libertarians for not being extreme enough, but saying logically they’re committed to certain views so that if they don’t hold such views then some of their arguments don’t work.

              • Tel says:

                Well if you want to haggle over the price of the state, then well and good, I agree with you ultimately that is what we are doing here.

                The US Constitution (and also Australian Constitution) were attempts to draw a line in the sand and say, “OK, state power ends right here.”

                That’s part of the haggling process, deciding how much you are willing to give away in exchange for military protection (and IMHO military protection is the only useful thing we get back from the state, I’m including police as military because in the modern world they are). In any contract you have to define the rights and responsibilities of both sides.

                You said above that “liberty” is just a word, but all law is just words, all contracts are just words, the point is for people to uphold it. That requires the state to uphold one side of the bargain, and the citizens to uphold the other. I think there’s plenty of evidence that in the present day the citizens got shafted big time.

                I apologize for misinterpreting your haggling over the price of the state comment, but it does come across like you aren’t interested in haggling particularly earnestly. Maybe that’s just my perception. The price of the state turned out to be a whole lot higher than anyone expected, and if we don’t turn that around, it will just keep getting higher again.

                Also, with respect to accepting the state legitimacy, I’m an empiricist so reality is legitimacy in my books, but I predict that the state we have is not long-term stable so it will either degenerate into some authoritarian socialist system (which would be stable, but horrible to live in) or just fly apart at the seams and rebuild itself from the pieces. If enough people work together we can rebuild something worth keeping.

              • guest says:


                This will probably give you a lot of what you’re looking for:

                Ron Paul Right, Thought Controllers Wrong, on Secession

      • Bharat says:

        Can’t the State do that too? Funny how it locks people in cages all the time for simple, non aggressive things like inhaling a certain substance.

        Of course, that’s where your statist philosophy leads.

        • xgsmmy says:

          Bharat, what is my “statist philosophy”? And how does it lead inevitably to anti-marijuana laws?

          • Bharat says:

            The philosophy that statism is okay? My point is not that it inevitably leads to anti-marijuana laws, but that it can and it has.

            Just like the point you are making about people using roads to enclose others in. All you have shown is that it could happen, not that it inevitably will happen. If you’re saying the latter, it’s up to you to prove it more than you have done so far.

      • Libertarian Ann says:

        No I mean the time before your parent indoctrinated you too. That freedom you had up till 5 or 6, (some had longer) that “knowing” already how things work or should in this world, but being taught the totally opposite way in school. I think we are all born anarchists.

        • Libertarian Ann says:

          and die anarchists

          • Tel says:

            Sounds a bit like, “Born alone and die alone.”

        • xgsmmy says:

          Ann, children are totally dependent on their parents until 5 or 6. I don’t know what that has to do with libertarianism, although if you want to call that anarchism I have no problem with it.

          You should know, though, that most of the posters on this site (presumably Bob too) think it’s perfectly fine for parents to let kids starve.

          • guest says:

            You should know, though, that most of the posters on this site (presumably Bob too) think it’s perfectly fine for parents to let kids starve.

            I think Walter Block [believes in Evictionism], et al, would say that letting kids starve can never justly be considered a crime as far as the state is concerned, and that it’s none of anyone else’s business.

            There’s a difference between that and saying that it’s fine to do so; Not from Block’s perspective, but there IS a difference.

            Now, Block is an Atheist, so he doesn’t recognize an authority higher than the individual (unless one consents to such an arrangement). But, I’m pretty sure he would be willing to say that if he believed in a Creator then he would recognize it as a higher authority.

            Even then, though, his obligation to feed his kids would derive from the Creator’s authority and NOT from the state or another person.

            Either way, the state would have no say in the matter.

            And if you noticed a starving kid and wanted to feed him – Block having abandoned him – then Block could not object to you doing so.

            But if Block prevented the kid from seeking food outside of Block’s property, then Block would be guilty of violating the kid’s right to liberty.

            The kid, having not agreed to citizenship, would not have recourse to arbitration services between him and his parents; Yet because we’re talking about a libertarian scenario, the opportunities for children to survive and prosper on their own would exist in FAR greater number than under our present circumstances:

            Defending the Undefendable (Chapter 32: The Employer of Child Labor) by Walter Block

            • xgsmmy says:

              the opportunities for children to survive and prosper on their own would exist in FAR greater number than under our present circumstances

              Why would this be so? It seems strange that an economics system that apparently has nothing to say about short term inflation can then say this.

              • guest says:

                Why would this be so?

                Please note the colon (“:”) followed by a link.

              • xgsmmy says:

                Sorry, guest, but I’ve already been directed to watch too many long videos for one day. I meant to say that in my response.

                I’ll try to get around to it watching it, though.

              • xgsmmy says:

                Now that I reread your statement, I guessing you’re talking about getting rid of child labor laws.

              • guest says:

                Sorry, guest, but I’ve already been directed to watch too many long videos for one day.

                No worries. I understand completely.

                And yes, if the child labor laws were abolished, there’d be more lemonade and cookie stands; Add to that the deregulation of the housing market, and you’d have cheaper housing.

            • Libertarian Ann says:

              thats what I want to discuss evictionism. Block calls it )prebirthabortion) Since I was raped and in that position of almost aborting, I have a diff viewpoint tan men on it.. they just never ask for my opinion! Its a great debate to be had and more research into

              • xgsmmy says:

                Ann, I haven’t had time to watch his video yet, but I think he’s probably talking about removing prohibitions on child labor if not something stronger.

              • xgsmmy says:

                Sorry, I’m not sure which comment you were replying to.

          • Tel says:

            You should know, though, that most of the posters on this site (presumably Bob too) think it’s perfectly fine for parents to let kids starve.

            Could you point me to your website where you are campaigning for the United States to invade Africa?

            • xgsmmy says:

              Well, I don’t have a website, but I would probably be in favor of something like a Marshall Plan for various countries.

              I’m not that knowledgeable about the issue of foreign aid, but I’m under the impression we already do some of these sorts of things.

              I’m not sure what your comment was meant to prove.

              • Tel says:

                It proves that you have yet to solve the problem of starving babies, so that puts you on a difficult moral position to criticize Bob for admitting that he has also not solved this problem.

                But at least Bob admits it.

              • xgsmmy says:

                Tel, I think maybe you’re using a stock argument you’e crafted to use against other libertarians on this issue, but I’m not a libertarian, and so it doesn’t really make sense.

                Presumably the dialogue requires the other person to say that, no, they’re against intervening in other countries for your argument to work?

                I’m perplexed that you carried on as if I had.

              • Tel says:

                It works against statists too. I’m still waiting for you to demonstrate a successful “humanitarian” intervention backed by force. Wanna have a go ad justifying dropping food and cluster bombs in Afghanistan? How’s that “hearts and minds” working out?

                You have already tacitly admitted that a direct US military invasion of Africa would not be useful to anyone. You have also admitted that for all your bluster you don’t actually have a working solution.

              • xgsmmy says:

                Tel, maybe you should calm down and reread what I wrote. I cited the Marshall Plan as an example.

                If you want to make an argument that an intervention would do more harm than good then it doesn’t really make much sense to criticize me for not being willing to support it.

                I don’t know what this has to do with the state punishing parents who let their kids starve to death, though.

              • Tel says:

                I cited the Marshall Plan as an example.

                So the US declared war on Germany because of humanitarian reasons with the Marshall Plan in mind huh?

              • Tel says:

                I don’t know what this has to do with the state punishing parents who let their kids starve to death, though.

                You probably should read
                Christopher Booker’s long list of absolutely appalling failures of the UK social workers. If you really want to save the babies you can search it out.

                Then there was the case where two young UK mums had part time jobs and took turns child minding for each other… until they got arrested for unlicensed child care. I’m not making this up.

                Very few cases of successful armed intervention on humanitarian grounds — neither small nor large.

                I would almost make a case for the helping Christians in Syria, Egypt and Libya right now… except that our Western governments are determined to help the Islamist rebels, thus demonstrating a complete lack of good faith. Private help for the Christians is going to be the best they get.

              • Tel says:


                There’s your armed intervention, and after you read that come back and tell me when to calm down.

        • xgsmmy says:

          And to be clear they don’t necessarily personally want to starve kids, they just believe it’s within their rights.

          • Ken B says:

            They are incredulous about this over at econlog.

          • Dan says:

            It’s crazy, right? It’s like when libertarians argue that people who drop bombs on innocent children are guilty of murder, and statists argue that it’s just collateral damage and perfectly legal.

            Well, it’s collateral damage except when they argue that they are specifically targeting children.


            By the way, Dr. Murphy doesn’t agree with Rothbard on the issue of children.

            • Joseph Fetz says:

              Murphy and I are in the same boat on Rothbard (I think). We agree with his political philosophy almost completely (though we may disagree with certain specifics), but our disagreements are usually found with regard to his ethics. We both still call ourselves Rothbardians in most cases, at least when people want to know a specific category to describe our political philosophy, but this obviously doesn’t mean that we cannot have certain disagreements with the man.

              Unlike Bob, I am not a pacifist, but he has shown me how pacifism can be consistent with libertarianism, just as can most any other moral position. All libertarianism really says is “keep your mitts off of other people and other people’s stuff, unless you have expressed permission to do so”.

              • Dan says:

                I’m not sure where I come down on that issue. I would need to devote more time to it before I could really take sides. But, yeah, I consider myself a Rothbardian, as well, even though I disagree with him on a different things.

          • Richard Moss says:


            A couple of comments;

            1) There are ‘Rothbardians” (i.e. Roderick Long and Stephen Kinsella), and I am sure others, who disagree with Rothbard that parents have a ‘right’ to let their children starve.

            2) Presuming you are morally opposed to infidelity, but do not think it should be illegal, if I were to say “xgsmmy doesn’t personally want to cheat on his or her spouse, but believes it’s within others rights to do so” I don’t think that would represent your position accurately. I think it would give the impression you don’t care if others cheat on their spouse, when you very well could.

            • xgsmmy says:

              Richard, what’s those other guys arguments against Rothbard?

              Is is that children are property or that there’s a “natural” contract of some kind?

              The property view would seemingly involve the right to not only starve but murder or molest them, but I’ll have to look into libertarian views on contracts, but my intuition tells me they must be off the reservation if they’re willing to defend them in any case much less an “implied” contract.

              Libertarianism is at best a philiosophy of hope that other people follow you, which makes what I imagine is Bob’s pacifism interesting but Walter Block’s talk of tribunals frightening.

            • xgsmmy says:

              xgsmmy doesn’t personally want to cheat on his or her spouse, but believes it’s within others rights to do so

              Well, this would be an accurate statement of my view, ignoring complications like STDs or something. (I don’t have a spouse, though.)

            • xgsmmy says:

              And I’m not trying to give a faulty impression, but I don’t think you even need to say that I don’t personally want to cheat as how could you know what’s in my head.

              (I’m not really wanting to get into a discussion about the ethics of cheating though.)

          • Joseph Fetz says:

            You do understand there political philosophy (e.g. libertarianism) and ethics are two entirely separate disciplines, right?

            • Ken B says:

              Not when you claim to deduce one from the other.

              • Joseph Fetz says:

                That isn’t the claim at all. Sure, I’ve heart many internet libertarians say such things, but almost every libertarian scholar that I’ve ever encountered has been pretty adamant about the fact that libertarianism is not a theory of ethics or morality.

              • Joseph Fetz says:


                Damn, my fingers are just stupid today.

              • martin says:

                I guess that’s why they write books like “The Ethics Of Liberty” and “The Economics and Ethics of Private Property”.

                (Deontological) libertarianism is a theory of ethics and/or morality (some libertarians make a distinction between ethics and morality), it is however not a complete theory of ethics and/or morality.

                To expand on the example of cheating: (deontological) libertarianism doesn’t say it’s ok to cheat or that it’s not ok to cheat, it only forbids others to use force to stop you doing so. (That’s what “having a right” means in this context.)

          • Joseph Fetz says:


      • Libertarian Ann says:

        yeah. you are talking crazy boy. How about you listen to a podcast itpc://www.blogtalkradio.com/ronpaulgirl.rss
        or go to my facebook page I just posted some videos. See women can do lots of different things. So you catch just one video and you get no idea who we really are. Of course we adress our philosophy in videos. I have over 500. I think Ive spoken enough without feedback. What I love about radio is instant feedback from audience so I can go where they want me to go with a topic. Just talk to us about it sometime. Even though, my comments are not even registering… I’m glad I found this site though, from it all. Love ya’ll. Try not to left brain it SO MUCH. Most all comments on here have…

        • Libertarian Ann says:

          But I admit I could be wrong and that’s what I like to know if the other person I’m debating with at a given time, if they considers themeless above all learning, cause if so no reason to debate them!

          And sorry Dr. Murphy for having to approve another comment from me. Man, I’m almost a troll now! lol

          • Bob Murphy says:

            And sorry Dr. Murphy for having to approve another comment from me. Man, I’m almost a troll now! lol

            Ann, I don’t even know what causes it to hold up some comments for moderation. Maybe links? Not sure.

            • Dan says:

              Yeah, if you post multiple links it will hold it up. Which is probably why you hardly ever see anybody post multiple links.

            • konst says:

              I think it’s the links. It always happens if there’s more than one link and maybe if the link is not a standard http.

            • skylien says:

              Yes two links in one comment need to be approved by you. (Last time I intentionally split my comment up in two parts to save you the work of approving it..)


              • skylien says:

                Well, guess my comment is kinda redundant…

  13. Andrew says:

    Women usually dislike politics (along with sports, guns, cars, and science fiction). That would seem to automatically put them in the libertarian tent, defined as politics for people who hate politics.

  14. Libertarian Ann says:

    I’m just sick and tired of the whole, women are more liberal minded thing. Maybe in a classical sense. But otherwise I just don’t know who you guys been hanging around with. I have charted the growth nationwide and it varies state to state. But we are everywhere. Any woman that has had the state take advantage of her, eventually becomes a libertarian if she has any sense. Or better yet an anarchist. I’m stil waiting to find someone more anarchist than me. I think I have Kokesh beat. Not to brag, jsut trying to give you guys some perspective. We might look feminine or weak but I’ll stand my ground till the end of time. Remember women are relentless, we never forget. They can take your child away, take your health away through big pharma, brainwash you in Neo-con land (like SMU where the Bush library is( I walked down laura bush ave to school everyday. Im glad shit hit the fan for me, cause I was a walking portrait of whatever society wanted me to be. We all get caught up in that. For me I had to get a radio show just to talk to people about philosophy. So remind women jsut cause there girlfriends around them only talk about shopping and whatever, there is a whole world online that will talk to you without judging you too much (if you use just audio first) The video brings in a diff perspective, but to talk human to human , male to female, with no sexual whatever in the way… That’s what got me hooked. Being able to feel for the first time that, huh… I got this too. I don’t have to pretend to be dumb anymore!

    • guest says:

      I don’t have to pretend to be dumb anymore!

      I think us guys are misunderstood.

      We don’t want you to pretend to be dumb. We just want you to be really, really, good looking.

      *Blue Steel*

    • Tel says:


      Difficult to get government research grants for pseudonymous research of the politically incorrect variety. Unfortunately, if you want to double-check the algorithm you are going to need access to the raw statistics on various test scores, and there’s no link to publicly available data.

      The “diversity space” analysis technique might work for economic preferences too, although I expect it would be difficult to uncover a single Gaussian basis for all economic preference, but you don’t know until you look.

      Needless to say, plenty of academics have wrung hands and whined about this stuff, but you know, a bunch of statists like that probably would do. I’m not saying I agree with it, but the basic analytical process seems quite workable. I don’t have access to any of the raw data myself. I’ve done a lot of data fitting in my time and Prodigy’s fit looks a bit too good to be true, but maybe he/she is trying it on to see who has the guts to isolate the errors.

      For what it’s worth, I read through William D Clinger’s posted criticism of the “Smart Fraction Theory” and he makes a criticism of the mathematics (demonstrating only that William D Clinger does not properly understand that a nonlinear curve will often fit data better than a linear curve) and also makes a criticism of the actual source of data (probably a valid criticism, but in that case the analysis should be run again with better source data).

  15. Libertarian Ann says:

    Im not editing this at all, I am sorry too tired…lol:

    After reading the whole thing over and watching video. I’m glad I commented first. Yeah I think the girls are all in agreement. We don’t do this stuff for attention, we do it cause well personally I’m sick and tired of “waiting” for freedom to be here. The kids are bringing it with them, regardless what any of us think or say. They are smart and they will answer most of the questions. Personally I dont respond anymore if I here” but what about the roads” we have got to progress forward, even if that means leaving some stragglers behind. It’s not public school. It’s reality. And we create it. Corny, but what women want women get. I used to cry after my show sometimes when they would threaten to kill me or rape me or call me horrible names. THey tried to get me to stop (trolls, etc..) but I kept going till they gave up. Just last night I dod a show on how to not get burnt out as an activists, cause I was sensing some strain lately among maybe the women and the men too here. We do not work. I’d love to see women give respect and allowed to debate with the men on a real stage. I really have faith now that the perspective I have is not wrong and is needed . Man what I would give to debate with Larker Rose on eviction (prebirthadoption) or Stefan on prostitution, or Wes Bertrand on non violent parenting and unschooling. Or Adam Kokesh, on who is more anarchist or not. I don’t have big guns (meaning arms or weapons) but I do have this thing inside me that tell me. … Well I always say, if I were a man I think I’d have huge ball’s. But Betty white reminded me recently I might re-think that… “Why do people say “grow some balls”? Balls are weak and sensitive. If you wanna be tough, grow a vagina. Those things can take a pounding.”
    Betty White ( can you see the marines saying, grow a vagina, lol)

    And basically when you boil this all down, IMO it comes down to love. who has it and who can express it to others will be the ones to reach the most people in the end. I just know, we are moving forward and never going back again.
    This whole liberty movement is here and is desired by so many people. We will only grow in numbers. I really thing your never given a dream without being given the power to make it true. So instead of trying to guide it, lay back and flow along with the revolution.

    “We are bound first to imform ourselves concerning so great a matter as the revolt of millions of people- what they are struggling for, what they are struggling against, and how the struggle stands- from day to day…as best you can; and second, to spread this knowledge among others, and endeavor to do what little you can to awaken the consciousness and sympathy of others.”
    ― Voltairine de Cleyre, The Voltairine de Cleyre Reader
    “I don’t care that they stole my idea . . I care that they don’t have any of their own” Nikola Tesla
    Sometimes, that’s how I feel too. Just cause I’m not the one to present the “idea” to another for consideration. I just l
    Call 347-202-0391 or visit http://m.libertarianann.coml/ Radio every night 12 AM CST. Also Video Streaming: http://www.livestream.com/libertyann and more

    Ron Paul Girl with Jillian Liberty
    2009 to present
    Gathering women together who support Ron Paul and believe in the message of Liberty .

    It’ slike men may ask where they are? But do they seriously want the answer? They can take a little time to watch more women’s videos and get all of what they are saying before they jump to judgement like with Julie. thats just not cool and gets really old too for us. http://youtube.com/libertarianann
    Ok a copy and paste and then I am done! promise!
    from my facebook profile, I wrote it 2 years ago, and I see how silly it sounds, but you get the gist…. :
    A GIRLS GUIDE TO LIBERTY” also “The Story of a Girl” which promotes the principles of liberty and educates America about my hero, Dr. Ron Paul, every night for 2 hours

    I may be ditzy at times, but I make up for it in creativity?! Interests to in Terrence Mckenna, DMT, Holographic Universe, Tom Woods, Stefan Molenyux, Libertarian Philosophy, Alan Watts, Writing, Mixing Music, Shamans, Bill Withers, Eustace Mullins, Bone Thugs, and of course Ron Paul! My hero! You name it & I just might have a story about it! Love my cowboy boots! 13 pairs!

    Ron Paul is the only man I’ve ever known with integrity consistent over that many years. Ron Paul’s philosophy and books lead me to discover more truth about myself. He unknowingly helped me get through a very hard time in my life. We are getting more women together in the Libertarian/ Freedom Movement!
    Namaste 🙂

    Ron Paul helped me recover from the hardest time in my life. I saw that if he can stay strong, in the den of hell (D.C.).. then I can survive my trials. In the end I believe truth and justice will be worth ever bit of any pain. So today I help other rape victims by using the libertarian philosophies and individualism! I love Carol Paul too! And she comes on the show often too, for girl talk 🙂
    G4RP t-shirt, “Real Women Vote Ron Paul” here:

    I love my libertarian ladies. We need more older women to look up to too. Pretty soon WE will be those women…

  16. Bob Roddis says:

    If women are indeed more receptive to “feelings”, then I would stick with my old standby: The Keynesians are stealing your purchasing power by diluting the funny money supply because they hate dogs and cats and want you to be too poor to adopt rescue pets!

    And I’ve always liked “Abe Lincoln was a genocidal mass killer of dogs!” (because he was)


  17. Daniel Kuehn says:

    I think you should produce a video with Julie – no analysis – where she is putting on your clown make-up. You occasionally interject “are you sure this is right?”, and she responds “trust me”.

    Actually, come to think of it you could just as easily reverse the roles.

    You could bill it as a “making of…” video for your zombie video.

  18. Lawrence says:

    What kind of flu is it? And you didn’t name any of the parties sent to relive the flu outbreak.

    • Scott from Ohio says:

      The most important question is, how big is the space station? Flu outbreak on the ISS is a totally different issue than a flu outbreak on Babylon 5 or DS9.

      • Joseph Fetz says:

        As if this thread wasn’t nerdy enough as it is, you had to go and pull the Trekky card.

  19. Bharat says:

    Dr. Murphy, I may just be clarifying something you don’t spell out rather than making a new point, but if women don’t like arguing, wouldn’t that mean women would tend to be apolitical?

    It seems to me your reasoning would explain (if this is true, of course) why fewer women speak about or enter politics and Julie’s reasoning would explain why fewer women among the already small group of women that are into politics choose to be libertarians.

    It’s clear that most women who are political are liberals and there’s a significant group of them. But if they didn’t like arguing, they probably wouldn’t identify as liberals either, correct?

  20. Bob Roddis says:

    And then there is the Austrian Puppy and Kitten Cycle Theory (APKCT). Keynesians induce an artificial boom to get people to adopt pets. But they know that their artificial boom must end in a bust when people discover that they have been misled and can no longer afford the pets which are then abandoned or put down. Keynesians do this intentionally because they hate puppies, kittens and little children and intend to cause the emotional trauma associated with pet abandonment just because they are evil.

    • xgsmmy says:

      Bob, so in an Austrian world they never get adopted? How is that better? Or in an Austrian world do no puppies ever lack homes? Say’s Law: the supply of puppies creates it’s own demand.

      Or are stray dogs shot on sight in anarcho-topia. There are no stray dogs in anarcho-topia only dogs who violate property.

      • Bob Roddis says:

        No stray dogs because everyone will be loving and responsible.

      • Bob Roddis says:

        There would be no An-Cap society unless and until the vast majority of people renounce fraud and the initiation of force. Therefore, they would be fundamentally honest and peaceful people. Why would you suggest that such people would tend to shoot others’ stray dogs on sight other than because you want to be a jerk?

        • xgsmmy says:

          Bob, maybe because you said Keynesians hate puppies. I love my dog and he hasn’t died because of economic stimulus yet.

  21. joeftansey says:

    “That’s why Matt Damon is being hailed for his anti-fracking movie, whereas Clint Eastwood is mocked for his views”

    Clint Eastwood isn’t a huge bully though. He’s actually kind of a nice guy.

    People only pay attention to politics when they can feel self righteous. So you pick the opposition’s weakest link, straw man the hell out of it, and congratulate yourself for being so much damn smarter than they are. That’s why people pay attention to us when we say “end the fed” because we can tell this scary narrative about a bunch of evil bankers secretly getting rich off the common man. That’s why people pay attention to Borowski, because she’s really sockin’ it to those idiots in congress (ha!), when the answer is obviously to cut spending (duh!). But libertarians can’t out-bully the mainstream movements.

    Democrats bully corrupt corporations, socially backwards conservatives, and those clods in Washington.
    Republicans bully poor minorities, wussy liberals, and those clods in Washington.
    Libertarians bully corrupt corporations, the military/police, and those clods in Washington…

    Where’s our edge? To try and make bullying the military cool? Good luck. I know libertarians like to circle jerk and watch their own bullying videos, but the kind of people this appeals to are not the kind we need to galvanize. If we ever get big, the MSM will come for our weakest links. A bunch of adolescent ideologues are just going to wind up on some Maddow segment and we will all suffer for it. The bottom 95% of the libertarian movement should really just stay home.

    At least Keynesian kids are level headed enough to defer to Paul Krugman. Libertarian websites have made every sophomore think they’re a !@#$%ing economic-history ace. But boys and girls, 95% of the time the correct answer is “I’m not sure”. Let the professionals handle it. We’re supposed to believe in division of labor, right?

    Naw screw it. I took a “class” on the great depression at mises.org. I didn’t do any of the background reading but I memorized a few statistics (that I don’t know how to look up) and that’s probably enough to win an argument against my history TA.

    • successfulbuild says:

      yes, I noticed Libertarians NEVER SHOW WHERE THEY GET THEIR INFORMATION when you debate with them.

      I still want to sign up for that computer science/linguistics class they offer at the Mises Institute, where you learn, to quote matt tanous (MF 2.0 perhaps), programming languages “have nothing to do with algorithms just like the language you use has nothing to do with the meaning and the sentences.”

      Of course, an abstract representation is just an the specification of an ADT operation.

      Highest Algorithm specification
      Lowest_____Code in a language.


      I got out my “Data structures in Java book” and found

      “At the lowest level, the details of how the algorithm will meet its responsibilities are expressed in a programming language. In other words, you have a working code that can be compiled and executed on a machine. This is clearly a concrete representation of the algorithm.”

      “Clearly” evident to every one in the world except you guys. That was the funniest thing I heard since i heard a Libertarian say since one of them claimed “irrational numbers” don’t really exist. Of course, spoken languages also have syntax and semantics, too.

      I an write a bubble sort code, but it’s not turing computable until i write it like (my own implementation in C++):

      void bubbleSort(int arr[], const int n)
      using namespace std;
      int lengthOfList = n;
      int tempCounter = n -1;
      int anotherCounter = 0;

      int anotherTempCounter = n – 1;

      while(tempCounter > 0)

      anotherTempCounter = n – 1; // leave here

      while(anotherTempCounter > anotherCounter)

      if( arr[(anotherTempCounter – 1)] > arr[(anotherTempCounter)])
      int tempValue;
      tempValue = arr[anotherTempCounter – 1];
      arr[anotherTempCounter -1] = arr[anotherTempCounter];
      arr[anotherTempCounter] = tempValue;
      anotherTempCounter = anotherTempCounter – 1;

      anotherTempCounter = anotherTempCounter – 1; //make sure this executes


      for(int i = 0; i < 3; i++)
      cout << arr[i] << endl;
      tempCounter = tempCounter – 1;



      • Ken B says:

        The two hardest things in the world are Matt’s head and getting me to defend him. But you are so clearly misrepresenting the point Matt was making that you have achieved this miraculous feat. And your code sucks.

        • Richie says:

          He’s a liar.

        • skylien says:

          “And your code sucks.”



          • successfulbuild says:

            ““And your code sucks.”


            LOL. And I’m sure little skylien could fix it.

            it’s written like that to be deliberately inefficient (i.e. it loops through already sorted data).

            notice the line that is commented out; it can be fixed rather easily.

            • skylien says:

              Oh big SB, you are so right. I really have to congratulate you with which ingenious wit you tricked me. I am so dumb compared to you.

            • Tel says:

              anotherTempCounter = anotherTempCounter – 1; //make sure this executes

              Putting the common code outside the conditional would be the most obvious eyeball optimization. Just a stylistic concern but when I see variable names like, anotherTempCounter I start to grit my teeth. For crying in a bucket, the FORTRAN guys got it right, the names for looped array indexes are as follows: i, j, k, so learn em and use em.

              • successfulbuild says:

                You are correct that that else clause doesn’t need to be there.
                The naming of the variables was for demonstration purposes only. The “anotherCounter” is to show you could create another variable that moves up 1 after the smallest has been moved to the left end. That algorithm is more for a procedural programming language like pascal than C++.

                You guys still don’t seem to understand the point that designing languages is an ongoing endeavour, and that knowing a language is knowing a formal representation scheme for representing algorithms.

                Saying all languages could execute the same algorithm is thus pointless. It’s not really practical to talk about Java GUIs being run in C++. Second of all, it’s like saying all computers are the same because a powerful wristwatch could execute the same functions as a super computer. Of course it could if you improved its memory and redesigned it, but they are not the same thing, just like C++ and FORTRAN are not the same thing.

                The “meaning” of human languages are not all the same either. I’ve already explained this and KenB hasn’t come up with anything to the contrary.

                Matt Tanous has repeated his nonsense with no sources so this “computer programming” is apparently too logical for libertarians to understand.

        • successfulbuild says:

          I actually thought Robert Murphy deleted these posts because I didn’t see them on return. Perhaps I cleared my cache.

          And provide a quote from a book, then, explaining what he meant. Instead of backing him up, you just said I’m wrong, without even explaining why… I quoted my book and linked to wiki.

          And further, I don’t even think any linguist has ever said, the language you use has nothing to do with the meaning of the sentences. If you provide a source for either I’ll graciously leave this forum and not come back.

          And the code is this pseudo-code:
          procedure sort(List)
          N <- the length of List
          while (N is greater than 1) do
          (J <- the length of List;
          while (J is greater than 1) do
          (if(the entry in position J is less than the entry in position J -1)
          then (interchange the two entries)
          J<- J -1)
          N <- N -1)

          The point being that that is a bubble sort in pseudo-code as opposed to a formal representation.

      • Richie says:

        and rothbard did indeed say facts are irrelevant. I got that quote from a review of one of his works from a Chicago school economist who criticized Rothbard for the same reason I did.


        I noticed Libertarians NEVER SHOW WHERE THEY GET THEIR INFORMATION when you debate with them.

        So you are a liar AND a hypocrite.

      • Joseph Fetz says:

        “I noticed Libertarians NEVER SHOW WHERE THEY GET THEIR INFORMATION when you debate with them.”

        In performing libertarian analysis you only need to create a hypothetical situation, or focus your analysis on a real event. Once you’ve done that, then you apply libertarian principles to that case (how those principles are arrived at is a different matter). Therefor, one doesn’t need to cite anything other than the case in order to form a conclusion or to debate the merits of that conclusion.

        If the debate in question is outside of these bounds, then this is no longer an implication against libertarianism or “libertarians” per se, but is rather an implication against the individual making the argument.

        For example, if we were discussing some physical science and I am making an argument that is data driven but I am not providing any data, the fact that you know that I also happen to be a libertarian doesn’t allow you to make the claim “libertarians don’t cite their data”.

        Part of being a scientist in any field is knowing the boundaries of the discipline, as well as whether you are inside or outside of those boundaries.

      • Matt Tanous says:

        Still on this nonsense? I’d note that I could write the same sort code in hundreds of other languages. Just like I can express my opinion about a topic in English, or also other languages. It’s really not a difficult concept for someone who isn’t hostile and illogical.

        • successfulbuild says:

          The Libertarian troll and “logician” still doesn’t get it. He’s like Eric Raymond, he refuses to admit he’s wrong even when he’s been shown wrong..
          I said computer scientists design languages to make them most efficient for people to use and he comes up with his “that doesn’t have anything to do with algorithms” nonsense, which he is STILL repeating, even after it has been explained.

          Computer languages, are, in fact the very formal, CONCRETE (i.e. REAL) representation of the algorithm. That is how it is defined in CS. The pseudo-code is just an ADT that tells us NOTHING about its implementation. Even in this simple example we’ve introduced a data structure (an array) and a loop, and not every language even has a do-while structure (even in my code I didn’t represent it exactly like the pseudocode i posted). So a representation in that language would be quite different.

          And they are NOT easily translatable from one language to another. If that were the case, then we could write a program that would translate Java code into C++ code. It is still a major goal is to ensure the syntax reflects the intended semantics, and furthermore, it should reflect the semantics in an ACCESSIBLE manner. All computer languages vary in how they do this, and the search for syntactic structures that represent semantics in a COMPLETELY UNAMBIGUOUS manner is a continuing goal in CS.

          So again, the “Libertarian logician” is completely clueless and incapable of understanding such simple facts.

          Some algorithms in a language depend on the language itself: when you’re doing something more complex like creating a GUI in Java, that DOESN”T translate over to Visual C++ etc… because your algorithms depend entirely on how Java is designed. It doesn’t make sense to talk about how every appcontext has a security context in VC++ because that’s not how it’s DESIGNED; it would require a whole rewrite of VC++, and C++ itself likely. This guy is talking like we’re living in the 1960s or something.

          finally, in real language everybody knows that not all sentences translate over to other languages, and some can only be translated over in a very ambiguous sense. This is why you often hear “a rough translation.” That is because the very meaning of those languages is embedded in their native language itself, and because they have different word orders which make the sentences nearly impossible to be translated over, so you could only talk about the meaning in an ambiguous sense.

          Even “Laissez-faire” barely means “hands off” from French to English, and it doesn’t capture the meaning. So you might indeed use more words to express the meaning more clearly, the interpretation of which would vary from person to person.

          Bottom line is that you guys are all stupid. (Notice how KenB didn’t come in here and provide a quote from a linguist who says that the meaning a person is trying to express is easily translatable from one language to the next, because it is not.)

      • Tel says:

        yes, I noticed Libertarians NEVER SHOW WHERE THEY GET THEIR INFORMATION when you debate with them.

        Give me a break.

        Rothbard’s book on the Great Depression is referenced and footnoted up the whazoo. He even puts in an appendix to work through his calculation methodology and explain why he makes certain presumptions. Mises makes a massive amount of material available for free download. I mean seriously, what would make you happy here dude?

        How exactly your bublbe-sort code proves that libertarians have problem referencing their work is beyond me by the way, perhaps some actual examples of the problem.

        • Joseph Fetz says:

          Tel, you must keep in mind that that book is an economic analysis, and while it is true that Rothbard was a libertarian, I don’t know that one could challenge the book purely in the sense of libertarianism.

          I don’t mean to downplay what you said (I think that you’re correct), but my interpretation is that successfulbuild is criticizing libertarians for things they may say outside of the confines of libertarianism, and then attributing that to libertarianism itself.

          • Tel says:

            Well I’m not going to get into an argument over intellectual purity (especially over exactly where the confines of libertarianism might be). I’m sure there are other examples out there.

            I only need to find a single counter example to show that “Libertarians NEVER SHOW WHERE THEY GET THEIR INFORMATION” is wrong. SB is welcome to put forward more specific criticism.

            Hmmm, maybe the bubble sort was supposedly trying to make reference to something in particular, but you would need to explain the inference.

            • Joseph Fetz says:

              Like I said, I agree with what you said, and I also think that you’re correct that SB would have a hard time at proving his statement (as well as many of the others that he’s made).

              However, I can’t help but think that he’s shifting the goalposts such that he is attributing the statements that some libertarians make to libertarianism, without some sort of substantiation that these statements are made within the purview of libertarian theory.

              It’s kind of like saying, “I know this guy is a libertarian, he’s said some things that aren’t backed by citation, therefor all libertarians don’t cite the sources of their information”. In an earlier statement I was trying to point out that if one is engaging in a libertarian case-analysis, there’s no need to cite a source.

              Further, if the argument is outside the bounds of libertarian analysis, then surely one cannot then place blame on libertarianism or libertarians.

              And if we’re talking about cases of general political philosophy argumentation, not necessarily strictly libertarian theory, then this is still the case. After all, we don’t need to cite sources to determine that murder is unjust.

              In effect he’s saying something like, “well, you say that triangles have 3 sides. Well, where’s your source?”.

        • successfulbuild says:

          Murray Rothbard isn’t even alive any more.

          So I doubt we’re going to be “debating murray rothbard” on the Internet.

          Take this “computer languages don’t have anything to do with algorithms” and “the meaning of the sentences has nothing to do with the language you use.”

          I already explained why the first position is wrong.

          In language, one person might not know if a sentence spoken is considered “proper” or not in another language even if it follows their traditional notions of grammar and syntax. I’m not a linguist, but I’ve never heard anybody say anything like those earlier comments.

          Libertarianism is solely based on deductive logic. So the “facts” rothbard collected likely fit in with his logic.

          Libertarianism is also the only theory that theoretically justifies tyranny. For example, I quoted Hans Hermann Hoppe describing a Libertarian commune, and it was totalitarian. It would be entirely plausible for a band of aristocrats to collect a bunch of land and force people who wandered onto into totalitarianism, like the child slave factories in India and the Islamic warlords in Northern Afghanistan.

          Everybody would agree that a single aristocratic family owning the land would be totalitarian, even Libertarians. But Libertarians say that that is OK.

          Coincidentally, Libertarianism is the ONLY philosophy that says it’s OK to have totalitarianism.

          No other philosophy says what they advocate is actually totalitarian. Someone advocating democracy would say that it’s impossible, for example, for there to be “mob rule,” even though it might be.

          Libertarians say it’s not only possible to have totalitarianism, but it is desirable. Thus, that is why Libertarianism is rejected.

          • guest says:

            Everybody would agree that a single aristocratic family owning the land would be totalitarian, even Libertarians. But Libertarians say that that is OK.

            If it’s your land, then you get to set the terms of residing on it.

            That’s the nature of private property. What’s the problem?

            If you get tired of living on someone else’s property, you can leave freely.

            I can’t think of a situation in which libertarians, believing in private property, would ever form a commune. That seems contradictory.

            Maybe there would be a contract among private property holders – maybe even to use each others’ land – but the properties would still belong to the original owners.

            • Ken B says:

              “That’s the nature of private property. What’s the problem?”

              Who decides who owns what or what ownership entails? These are social decisions and historical accidents.

              • Major_Freedom says:

                The question is not who decides who owns what or what ownership entails, because it’s not something that is answered by Jim as opposed to John.

                The question is what decides who decides owns what or what ownership entails.

                The “what” is reason.

              • Ken B says:

                Right, it’s first principles and logic that Henry Ford owns Ford Motor Company and I don’t. Aristotle proved it.

              • guest says:

                Who decides who owns what or what ownership entails? These are social decisions and historical accidents.

                You start with these facts:

                1. There’s more than one person in existence.

                2. Resources are scarce.

                3. Each person owns his own self (or, alternatively, no one may own you – for those who think one can’t logically own himself).

                What follows from these facts is the principle of homesteading, which describes how property originally comes to be owned by an individual.

                We all can’t own the same resource because we each have no claim over what someone else does with his own body, relative to a given resource.

                So, the natural state of resources is that it is unowned.

                We are all free, then, to transform unowned resources.

                However, the thing that is transformed has been mixed with one’s labor, and so becomes the property of the one who worked it.

                He has the right to abandon it, thereafter (it then becomes unowned), or he can trade it to someone else (it then becomes someone else’s property).

                Once resources have begun to be extracted, then the extraction site becomes propery.

                The extraction site having become property, another may not disturb the site, and so only that property which is sufficient to permit the owner to work his property likewise becomes his property (For example, the area around the crops you planted, or around the house you built).

                There’s some debate among Austrians about what kind of things can be homesteaded, or whether one can leave an inheritance to someone who is not capable of accepting it (you can’t force property upon someone); but that’s generally how property rights are justly establishes.

                Notice that homesteading doesn’t require aggression.

              • guest says:

                These will help:

                Propaganda, Meet Modern Research

                … Tony Flood discusses (here, here, and here) the enclosure movement in Britain.

                This was a central socialist theme: the people must not be viewed as having chosen to abandon the land for the factory, having made a rational assessment of what was best for them. They must have been tricked or forced into it.

                The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Lecture 8 | Thomas E. Woods

                (The lecture is called “Myths and Facts About Big Business”, and talks about the difference between the so-called Robber Barons and actual ones, as well as about the predatory pricing issue.)

          • Joseph Fetz says:

            How many classical aristocratic societies are around today? Just curious.

  22. Ken B says:

    Bob, you presented her as a good ambassador to the rest of the non libertarian world: making videos to make libertarianism cool in the pop culture. It was directly to that that most of us spoke. I even said so explicitly. As an ambassador, she’s weak; as the warm up act at cult festival she might be a hit.

    • Bharat says:

      Yeah, Murphy’s response (The people saying, “I would never send that video to my non-libertarian friends!” are totally missing the point. This video is aimed at LIBERTARIANS. That’s why at the end she says her strategy is “how we win.” ) only applies if it is in response to people saying that to the video posted above. He might be confusing the two separate videos if he’s saying that in response to people like you.

  23. Libertarian Ann says:

    Curious why my comments have not been approved?

    • Bob Murphy says:

      I’m not a vampire. (I went to bed late and just saw your comments now.)

      • Ken B says:

        He’s a zombie.

      • Libertarian Ann says:

        of Course, I thought it must be some conspiracy…. JK.

        I dont think my comments had much affect anyways. It seemed to make so much more sense in my head, I really am hard to follow when I’m writing maybe? Or maybe I made no sense to anyone! But no responses at all on the real meat of the issue. Just random comments on democracy and statists on the wrong blog. (not talking about you) lol. I called you Bob. I should have said Dr. Robert Murphy. I’m sorry about that 🙂

        I keep setting libertarian men up on dates with libertarian women. I’m a pretty good matchmaker. Think of all the little enlightened beings that would produce. All of them opposed to authority, lol.

        I posted a bunch of my old “libertarian girls” videos adressed to them on facebook if anyone is bored. Have a good one

        “Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.”
        ― C.G. Jung

        • Bob Murphy says:

          Libertarian Ann wrote:

          I keep setting libertarian men up on dates with libertarian women.

          You have just embarrassed all of the men. We identified a problem and just whined about it, but you came up with an entrepreneurial solution. Bravo!

          (And “Bob” is fine. Perhaps you’ve seen what people call me on Facebook…)

  24. Ken B says:

    “girls don’t like to argue as much as guys do.”

    Unmarried are we?

    • skylien says:

      You are conflating arguing with giving the drone time to second guess his sudden mood of trying not to be a drone…

      (just kidding)

      • Ken B says:

        I was just being mordant but while we’re here, Bob’s reason is bad, as it woul imply fewer women are liberal too.

        • skylien says:

          Uh, I thought you just made a funny comment..

          Anyway, I don’t think this is implied. Being liberal is a big and accepted political view. As people have to have one, most will pick a common one if they are not interested in taking a look at the whole range.

          There is nothing wrong to go with the mass in certain issues if you have to have an opinion on it but you are not interested in it. It is a logical choice.

          Yet politics and economics is just so important that it is really sad so many people (not only women) are not really interested in it…

    • Matt Tanous says:

      That’s not arguing. That’s reasserting the truth until the husband gets it through his thick skull.

      On a serious note, I’d really say that it isn’t arguing. Generally, it seems to be more that one person is trying to rationally solve a perceived problem, while the other is approaching the situation emotionally – usually defensive from a perceived insult or failure for the other to understand.

  25. Ken B says:

    On my blog is a link to the movie I Pencil. Scroll down. I think you will find that kind of thing more effective. Admittedly an elaborate production, but as Bob’s videos prove, you can be effective with logic and humor with just one or two people. Or google “the Bernank”.

  26. xgsmmy says:

    I wonder if Julie knows that as a libertarian she’s logically committed to be against copyright when she calls for more libertarian artists and filmmakers.

    • Nicholas Glenn says:

      A large faction of libertarians are against intellectual property. Stephen Kinsella has a book out that argues against it. I’m not sure where Julie stands on that issue.

    • Jack says:

      Do you realize that libertarians are against schools and hospitals and police and courts and garbage disposal and agriculture and electricity and ss and military and durg industry and whatever the funk government runs? Than you’ve commited the ultimate ststist fallacy – if the government provides it, without it there will be no such thing.
      There will be no such thing, because it will work voluntarily, it will be different, magnitudes better and more efficient. Film makers and artists – no todays hollywood. Will you miss it? Too bad because it has no value to me, oops. It might be the case it will flourish but I won’t object neither way. As long as you put the gun away when you try to get what you want.

      • guest says:

        Too bad because it has no value to me …

        So true. There’d be a lot less noise without copyright.

  27. ThomasL says:

    Empire > Federation

  28. Kay says:

    Humor works wonders!  So does truth.  Unvarnished truth, the kind Ron Paul was still too much of a gentleman to dish up straight up, take to its logical conclusions, and deliver on the debate floor, and in to the audience’s laps.  (OOPS — time’s up, no time to discuss THAT!!)

    Naked truth resonates with people who are stuggling to reconcile the Party Lines they are fed 24/7 from Think Tank Products that fill the airwaves and define the allowable “limits” of thought.  

    Fox on the right, and NPR on the left.  Beyond those boundaries, the average person is not equipped to stray, and certainly not without risking ostricism.  “If you’re not with us, you’re against us!” as an example of the intimidating swagger hurled at the public.  It’s not a proclamation; it’s a veiled warning!  Do not think outside the approved zone or you risk being bullied.

    And yet, people’s common sense tells them that what they “believe” (bought!) does not quite make sense.  All over the US, in bedrooms at around midnight after George Bush made his famous assessment of recent history, thinking persons turned to their significant other as they got ready for bed that night and said, “Honey, the thought product I just bought from RAND buried within a NYT article explained why the President said, ‘the terrorists hate us because of our freedom,’  and yet that doesn’t make sense!!  I can’t put my finger on exactly why that would be the case.  I know it’s ludicrous, but ….”  If only voices of Libertarianism were in the mix–  or in the case of economic thought, voices of “Austrian-cism”.

    Humor allows and facilitates that momentary stray out of the Approved Boundaries without realizing the step out of bounds even ocurred, so enjoyable was the moment of mental relief, finally having one foot on terra firma!  And then, the person (the target audience) may realize, “Hey, I am thinking a Forbidden Thought!  and I rather enjoyed it”, because it was a release from the Officially-Sanctioned spectrum of thought!  And, “by golly, this makes sense!”

    This is how we can chip our way forward and shatter the phoney (and extremely elaborate and expensive) explanation of events that protect the Elite’s interests. Explanations that the public is no doubt helping to fund, one way or another, to add insult to injury!

    Hooray for Mises.org!  and carry on, guys AND girls!

  29. Libertarian Ann says:

    decided to do the show tonight on the topic if anyone is around. Some of you statist guys commenting need a refresher course in everything! I’ll do the best I can with you… lol (kinda kidding)

  30. Nikolaj says:

    ‘Tom Woods expresses his feelings, and Bryan Caplan weighs in.’

    Yes, Woods is not smart enough to ‘think’ or ”weighs in’ like Caplan (or Murphy); he can only feel and ‘express his feelings’ Nauseating.

    • Ken B says:

      Too funny.

    • Bob Murphy says:


      Email Tom and ask him if he got the joke. Congratulations, you are one of “our side”‘s humorless automatons.

  31. Nikolaj says:

    Bob, ok, you are right and I am totally, absolutely, irreparably wrong. 🙂

    • Bob Murphy says:

      OK I hope you didn’t actually vomit.

      • Ken B says:

        Darn it. I was hoping to prod Bob to lay out in detail why he says Tom Woods can’t think. That would have been fun!

Leave a Reply