Libertarian Party Memes

The Libertarian Party has been a real hoot this election. I think everybody is familiar with Senator Bernie Sanders’ supporters promoting his candidacy with the “Feel the Bern” meme. Naturally, Libertarians have their own version for Governor Gary Johnson.

It’s exactly what you think it is.



I think my favorite Libertarian meme (so far) belongs to the John McAfee camp. Actually, this might be mocking John McAfee. It’s hard to tell, given his campaign style. Heck, for all I know, this is an official campaign press release.




That’s pretty much going to be my impression of John McAfee forever now.

Some Random Annoying Nonsense about Libertarianism

[Same post as before, but this time with a title. Arg.]

Lucy Steigerwald points to an annoying Vox article about libertarianism by Drew Brown with the cringe-inducing title “Why Libertarians and MRAs Sound the Same When They Talk About Feminism.”

The piece starts out with some real issues of women being harassed by assholes, and private employers firing said assholes, which doesn’t bother me a whole lot. However, once the author starts discussing libertarianism, the piece becomes a loony tune:

At first it might seem sort of surprising that a libertarian would come to the defence of a guy getting fired for saying sexist shit in public. I mean, the whole movement is essentially designed to uphold employers’ rights to do almost whatever the fuck they want to their underlings.

See what I mean? The libertarian movement’s basic philosophy rests on the foundation of the non-coercion principle: You can only do whatever you want to other people if you have their consent. I suspect Brown is confused because he disagrees with some of the things employees have consented to, such as low wages or working conditions he doesn’t like.

But it’s possible that because the guy was fired from Hydro One, Ontario’s government-owned (at least for now) electricity company, this could be seen as an act of state repression as heinous as food safety regulation or public transit.

Maybe. It’s kind of complicated, having to do with whether the guy had a duty to behave himself as a representative of his employer, and whether the limits imposed by his employer pass some tests of legitimacy for government agencies. Here in the U.S., this would be a constitutional issue related to First Amendment limits on how governments can control their employees’ speech, but this all took place in Canada, which turns out to be a whole different country.

And if you don’t think food safety regulations can be hideous form of state repression, you probably haven’t been paying attention to how those regulations are enforced. Food safety is a great thing, but it also becomes an excuse for shutting down competitors to politically powerful agricultural interests, expanding the fiefdoms of government bureaucrats, and weirdly puritanical crusades against things like raw milk.

So then why would a libertarian spring to sexism’s defence? A cursory visit to the Manosphere can show you a statistical link between libertarians and anti-feminist men’s rights activists. Even self-identified “libertarian feminists” like Jessica Flanigan note a tension between the goals and values of libertarians and those of feminists.

And she come out in favor of libertarianism whenever the feminist goal of discouraging sexism crosses over into coercive tactics. So…not the best example.

When you look at it this way, it’s not hard to see that libertarians and men’s rights activists are two sides of the same reactionary coin.

Weirdly, that link goes to a post about how libertarianism is supposedly related to the neoreactionary movement. For fuck’s sake, neoreactionaries want a return to monarchy! The author just thinks libertarians and neoreactionaries are closely related because, for completely different reasons, they both oppose his liberal ideals.

Brown then goes on to explain what MRAs are all about. It’s kind of long, but remarkably nuanced.

MRAs are the disaffected losers of a male-dominated world. They are legitimately upset that they have to put up with all the bullshit that traditionally masculine gender roles impose on men (do dangerous work; live and die by your dick; defer to “naturally” nurturing women in child-care custody battles; etc) but they don’t enjoy any of the payoffs they were promised for playing along. Patriarchy is a pyramid scheme, and for every Don Draper at the pinnacle there are a thousand Pete Campbells underneath them, whining that they can’t get their due.

At this point, Brown is on the verge of stumbling on the basic relationship between MRAs and the libertarian movement. People who used to control everything are starting to feel political power shift to other groups — from whites to people of color, from men to women — and that frightens them. And when people who frighten you are in control of the government, making the government less powerful begins to look like a good idea. And calling yourself a libertarian sounds a lot better than admitting you’re a racist or a sexist.

Unfortunately, Brown goes in a completely different direction:

You can see why these people would get along with libertarians, who are also very emotionally invested in maintaining bullshit social and economic hierarchies under the veneer of individual rights.

First of all, libertarians believe that people should be able to form whatever social and economic hierarchies they want to, which they should be free to maintain or tear down as they see fit, as long as no one forces anyone else into the hierarchy by, for example, enacting the hierarchy into law.

Second, it’s not a veneer, you jackass. It’s a guiding principle. And I guess Brown realizes that, because he then launches an attack on individualism:

One of the basic premises of libertarianism is that only individuals exist. There is no such thing as a group or a gender or a race or a nation or a community of any kind.

Not quite. Believing there’s no such thing as a group or a gender or a race or whatever would be silly. He’s misstated the principle. It’s not that only individuals exist. It’s that only individuals matter. That is, government policy should be evaluated on the basis of it’s effect on individuals, not on nebulous or questionably defined social groups.

This doesn’t mean there’s nothing wrong with a policy that harms a group such as women or people of color. But the policy isn’t bad because it harms the group, it’s bad because it harms the individuals that make up the group.

Obviously, the idea that we all go through life as isolated individuals and that group identities (race, class, gender, sexuality, etc) don’t define us in any meaningful way could only seem plausible to a white man of at least moderate financial means—or anyone bound up in the aspirational fantasies of whiteness, masculinity, and economic elitism. Whiteness, and especially straight male whiteness, is treated as the de facto standard from which others deviate, to such an extent that a straight white (cis, able-bodied) man can completely forget his experience is not universal. From within that perspective, it’s easy to see freedom as consisting in, and only in, being left alone to do whatever you want with your money.

It’s the only definition of freedom that doesn’t involve oppressing others. That some straight white cis able-bodied men claim this kind of freedom for themselves while taking it from others — Thomas Jefferson is the archetype — doesn’t mean that being left alone is a poor definition of freedom. It just means that some straight white cis able-bodied men are hypocritical assholes.

Both libertarians and MRAs are dedicated to missing this point. They speak in the language of individual rights and equality because by reducing all the complexity of the social world down to a set of isolated units, they can pretend that everyone’s privileges and disadvantages are rightfully earned.

I don’t know about MRAs, but us libertarians reduce the complexity of the social world to a set of isolated people because when it comes to evaluating public policies, isolated people are easy to understand: They all matter, and they all matter equally. From where I sit, it’s people who divide us into tribes that are trying to take advantage of us, regardless of which tribes they call their own. Conservative tribalism is every bit as bad as liberal tribalism.

Even the imagery of the “Nanny State” is hilariously sexist—as if the government is a giant woman, nagging the boys to do their homework and making them go to bed before the good TV shows are on.

It has nothing to do with gender. When the government outlaws sex toys or toy guns or Big Gulps, we call it the “Nanny State” because nannies take care of children, and the government is treating adults like children.

[…] if there’s one place where libertarians and MRAs often overlap, it’s in being smug, condescending pricks on the internet.

Right back at ya, bro.

Confuse the Record

Hillary Clinton is the secret love child of Bill Maher and Rachel Maddow who became the brain-eating zombie Queen of planet Zorg before traveling back in time to marry Bill Clinton and kill Vince Foster with her retractable poisonous fangs because he was about to reveal that she was conspiring through a private email server to use her speaking fees to raise funds for terror attacks in Benghazi to distract us from her plan to have the Clinton Foundation use climate change as a cover for to enslaving humanity for her Muslim overlords.

Come at me bro.


More About the ExxonMobil Fishing Expedition

A little more information has come out about that suspicious investigation that produced the seemingly abusive subpoena to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, asking them for a crapton of documents related to CEI’s work on climate change, presumably in connection with the investigation into ExxonMobil’s alleged lies to investors.

The Washington Times has a copy of a subpoena issued to ExxonMobil, and it’s quite the fishing expedition. It asks for all of ExxonMobil’s communications about climate change by almost any means (including MySpace!) with over 100 organizations. Most of them seem to be random policy think tanks, a few of which (e.g. the Heartland Institute) have a pretty shady reputation when it comes to climate change.

I’ve heard of many of the rest, but I couldn’t really characterize them one way or another on climate issues. Since many of them also appear on Greenpeaces’ ExxonSecrets list of supposed climate change deniers (presumably because both lists were created from similar sources) I assume they have expressed some degree of skepticism about global warming.

The one that got my attention (because they brought it up themselves) is Reason magazine, or rather their publisher, the Reason Foundation. With all their contributors, I’m sure that somebody at Reason has said something stupid about the climate, but their main climate science correspondent, Ronald Bailey, has been pretty straight about it. He was skeptical of early global warming models that predicted catastrophic levels of warming, but he got on board once scientists figured out how to reconcile the satellite data (which showed little warming) with the data from surface thermometers (which show more warming). You could argue that he should have gotten on board sooner, but there’s a difference between being sincerely skeptical and lying about the science.

Reason is a policy oriented organization, so their concern — and mine — is not about the existence of anthropogenic global warming but about what our response should be. Soon after global warming entered the public consciousness, environmentalists, anti-capitalists, and big-government politicians seized on it to claim the power to control a large chunk of our economy. To those of us in the libertarian movement, rather than being an inconvenient truth, global warming seemed to be a suspiciously convenient theory for the radical left. Despite this, the libertarians at Reason have pretty much accepted global warming and moved on to discuss what to do about it. This conversion was what convinced me that climate change was not just another moral panic and that I should pay more attention to it.

There are far too many organizations mentioned in the subpoena for me to research, and many of them could be lobbying fronts for ExxonMobil. A lot of them, however, appear to be right-wing or free-market advocacy groups, such as the National Taxpayers Union and the Heritage Foundation, or business-oriented groups such as the National Black Chamber of Commerce which would naturally be highly skeptical about climate change without having to be part of an alleged conspiracy.

Some of the organizations seem pretty legitimate, such as university-centered research teams like the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University, the George Mason University Law and Economics Center, and the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, which have a free-market orientation that would make them skeptical the kinds of centralized planning proposed to deal with the climate crisis.

Then there are places like the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, or the Arizona State University Office of Climatology, which are legitimate scientific organizations that I assume are on the list because of a kerfuffle with one or two of their researchers.

So far as I know, only one of these organizations (the Competitive Enterprise Institute) has been hit with a subpoena of its own, and maybe that’s where it will end. But I wouldn’t bet on it. Witch hunts usually don’t end until they cause a lot more damage.


IBD Discovers the Earth’s Temperature Changes

Since I’ve been picking on climate change activists for their legal policies, I figure I should take a turn picking on global warming deniers for their misstatements about climate science. Case in point, an unsigned editorial in Investor’s Business Daily titled “Father of Global Warming Admits: It Used to Be Hotter Than It Is Now.” I’m by no means an expert on climate science, but I think I can see a few flaws here.

To listen to the climate change alarmist community, one would think that Earth has never been so warm as it is now.

There are enough climate activists in the world that I’m sure someone somewhere must have said something like that, but that’s not actually part of the theory of anthropogenic climate change.

But it’s been warmer, and sea levels have been higher, facts that the leader of the movement acknowledges.

I would hope he does, since it’s pretty well scientifically established.

James Hansen, the famed NASA scientist who stirred the climate scare when in 1988 he told a Senate committee that “global warming” — yes, he used those words

— What the heck is going on with global warming deniers who think the shift in terminology from “global warming” to “climate change” is a trick of some kind? What’s that about? I’ve got to look that one up someday. Anyway…

— “is already happening now,” has never backed off his claims, despite the fact that he’s been demonstrably wrong.

I know almost nothing about Hansen, or how his specific claims have held up, but the editorial sure seems to get important things wrong.

The narrative since that day in 1988 is that Earth is entering a dangerous warm era created by man’s carbon dioxide emissions. Every heat wave, cold snap, drought, hurricane, heavy snow, torrential rain, and change in sea level has been supposedly caused by man. And all are allegedly unprecedented events.

Um…no. The theory of anthropogenic climate change makes claims about worldwide climate trends over periods of decades or longer. One of those claims is that global warming will increase the frequency and intensity of some local weather events, but as far as I know, there’s no way to trace these kinds of specific instances of extreme weather to global warming. Each time we break a temperature record is another bit of evidence that warming is occurring, but no single hot day or intense hurricane proves global warming. Even a hot year is just a data point. (Of course, no single cold day or year refutes global warming either.)

It’s been warmer, and extreme weather has visited us before, all in a time long before man began to drive cars and operate power plants that helped move him from an almost primitive existence to a modern one.

Hansen has even admitted this.

I would hope so, since much of climate science is based on historic data from those periods. Lots of things have affected our climate over the life of the planet — variations in output from the sun, cycles in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, volcanoes, changes in vegetation, changes in ocean currents, meteor strikes, drifting continents… A lot can happen to a planet in four and a half billion years. The geological record of those ancient times is one of the reasons we have some idea of what the Earth would be like with more CO2 and higher temperatures, because both of those things have happened before and left evidence for scientists to analyze.

“The last interglacial period, 120,000 years ago, that’s the last time it was warmer than today, sea level was 6 to 9 meters higher,” he said in an interview with online magazine Yale Environment 360.

So it has been warmer, and sea levels have been higher. And those conditions were entirely natural. Yet the alarmists want us to believe that the predicted warmth of today — which has yet to occur — is man-caused. How do they know?

That’s a huge topic, but the short answer is that we can see that our civilization is dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, and we can see evidence that this is causing the atmosphere to retain more heat, but when we look at all the other known possible causes of global warming, none of them seem to be responsible for the current warming.

The Watts Up With That blog points out another hole in the narrative: While implying that we’re headed for another 6-to-9-meters increase in sea level […] “Hansen failed to say” that “paleoclimatological studies have indicated that it took a number of millennia for sea levels to rise those 6 to 9 meters when temperatures were warmer than today.”

Maybe Hansen failed to say it, but climate scientists aren’t predicting an overnight deluge. They believe it will take centuries for the world’s glaciers to melt away.

Yet we’ve been told until the alarmists have no more hot air to exhale that we are running out of time to act, and maybe already have.

Contrary to what the IBD editors are saying, there’s nothing inconsistent about having to act quickly now to prevent a catastrophic sea level rise in the future. The way it works is that CO2 levels rise as fast as we can dump CO2 into the atmosphere, but then it takes decades for the greenhouse effect to warm the Earth, and even longer for the warmer climate to melt glacial ice to raise the sea level. Nevertheless, the final height to which the sea rises, hundreds or thousands of years in the future, is a function of the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and we are increasing that level right now. The sooner we stop producing massive amounts of CO2, the smaller the eventual sea rise will be.

The only thing Hansen is “admitting” is what climate scientists have been saying for years.

A Bad Remedy For Bad Climate Speech

When I’m reading a news story, there are two words which almost guarantee I’ll be cringing by the end: Attorneys general. The position of attorney general is usually seen as a stepping stone to higher office, so it’s often occupied by some subspecies of spotlight-seeking control freak. Just one of them would be bad enough, but when a bunch of attorneys general from different states take the time to work together toward a common goal, you just know it’s going to be something awful, something like passive aggressively pressuring Google to censor search results, vilifying MySpace because the AGs didn’t follow proper procedures, or accusing Craigslist of human trafficking. I mean, Christ, thirty-five of them got together to complain that Four Loko booze comes in cans that are too big.

This time a pack of twenty AGs are attacking the free speech of climate change skeptics:

Not only do Schneiderman and his new claque climate crusaders aim to force ExxonMobil to repent (while possibly extracting some cash along the way), they also evidently intend to shut up non-profit groups to which the oil company donated funds that have questioned the notion of impending man-made climate catastrophe.

In service of this goal, the Attorney General of the U.S. Virgin Islands Claude Walker has issued a subpoena to the Washington, D.C.-based think tank the Competitive Enterprise Institute. According to CEI, the subpoena demands that the non-profit produce “a decade’s worth of communications, emails, statements, drafts, and other documents regarding CEI’s work on climate change and energy policy, including private donor information. It demands that CEI produce these materials from 20 years ago, from 1997-2007, by April 30, 2016.”

Admittedly, this is not a direct attack. The main thrust of the investigation is aimed not at CEI but ExxonMobil. The attorneys general are investigating whether ExxonMobil lied to investors about the effects of climate change on shareholder value.

For example, changing patterns of Arctic ice thawing could disrupt the company’s oceanic drilling and shipping operations, and thawing permafrost could cause upheavals that might damage buildings or pipelines, as could increasingly violent weather patterns. By playing down climate change, critics (and attorneys general) might argue, ExxonMobil is playing down the costs they will incur. Of course that applies to any business that could be affected by climate change, not just the oil companies that are the favorite targets of environmentalists.

A more specific concern is the oil in the ground. Oil companies make their money by pumping that oil out of the ground and selling it to people, and a large part of their current stock value comes from the expectation that they will be able to continue doing that for many decades into the future. The problem is that burning those enormous oil reserves will do immense damage to our planet’s climate. So it’s quite likely that world governments will at some point force the oil companies to leave most of their reserves in the ground — at least if the world is going to limit warming to the commonly cited 2°C target. In other words, because of climate change, oil companies will not be able to make nearly as much money as everybody thought they would. Therefore, by playing down climate change, companies like ExxonMobil are effectively lying about the value of their stock.

It’s an interesting economic point, and the same reasoning applies to coal and gas companies as well, but so far we haven’t seen the expected massive decline in the stock prices of companies with large fossil fuel reserves. The capital markets don’t seem to believe that we’ll be leaving all that oil, gas, and coal in the ground. That may be a realistic analysis: Current predictions are for an increase in fossil fuel consumption over the next couple of decades, likely blowing through the 2°C warming target.

There are a lot of unknowns here, and unknowns are risks, and risks are supposed to be disclosed to investors. Have the oil companies been doing it right? I haven’t got a clue, but that’s what the attorneys general are claiming to be investigating.

On the other hand, I’m pretty sure the Competitive Enterprise Institute has nothing to do with any of this. They have no obligations to investors in the fossil fuel industry. So how did they get sucked into the investigation?

It sounds like the attorneys general are pursuing some sort of conspiracy angle in which ExxonMobil was paying CEI to mislead the public as a means of influencing investors. I suppose that theory gives them plausible legal cover for harassing CEI. However, given that U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker worked for eight years as an attorney for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and that former Vice President Al Gore was included in a recent press conference about the investigation, it seems likely that this move is less about financial fraud and more about finding a way to strike back at ideological enemies in the climate argument.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman started his investigation of ExxonMobil last year, but the subpoena to CEI didn’t come until after CEI attorney Hans Bader published an article critical of the investigation, which sounds a lot like retaliation. I can’t help thinking that some of the attorneys general are enjoying the chance to slam an enemy of environmentalists with the high cost of fighting or complying with the legal process. And if they could find a way to implicate CEI members in the conspiracy, all the better, right?

University of Tennessee law professor Glenn Reynolds argues that this is illegal:

Federal law  makes it a felony “for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).”

I wonder if U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker, or California Attorney General Kamala Harris, or New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman have read this federal statute. Because what they’re doing looks like a concerted scheme to restrict the First Amendment free speech rights of people they don’t agree with.

I don’t know if Reynolds is right, but this kind of legal action seems to be part of a disturbing trend in which environmentalists have been trying to use the legal system to suppress the free speech of climate change skeptics.

I suppose it started with climate scientist Michael Mann’s lawsuit against several critics, including columnist Mark Steyn at the National Review and Rand Simberg at CEI. That’s just one guy (and he kind of had a point, even if the lawsuit is apparently stalled), but more recently 20 climate scientists signed a letter to President Obama calling for far more dangerous action:

We appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress. One additional tool – recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse – is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.

The RICO statutes are one of the biggest loose cannons in federal law. Originally intended to help fight organized crime, RICO laws have been used to enhance penalties for things like securities fraud and teachers altering test scores or to fight marijuana legalization. Apparently, there’s been some talk in the Department of Justice about using RICO against climate skeptics, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see DOJ joining the attorneys general in their crusade against bad science.

Even Bill Nye “the science guy” is kind of okay with jailing people over climate science:

Asked about the heated rhetoric surrounding the climate change debate, such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s previous comments that some climate skeptics should be prosecuted as war criminals, Mr. Nye replied, “We’ll see what happens.”

“In these cases, for me, as a taxpayer and voter, the introduction of this extreme doubt about climate change is affecting my quality of life as a public citizen,” Mr. Nye said. “So I can see where people are very concerned about this, and they’re pursuing criminal investigations as well as engaging in discussions like this.”

You know who else’s quality of life is going to be affected? Everyone involved in the fossil fuel industry, if we switch to greener energy. You don’t think they’d like to shut down climate scientists’ claims of anthropogenic global warming? If RICO actions about climate science had been available a few decades ago, oil and coal companies would have used them to suppress research into global warming by labeling it a conspiracy to destroy the energy industry and hurt the U.S. economy.

About the potential for a “chilling effect,” Mr. Nye said, “That there is a chilling effect on scientists who are in extreme doubt about climate change, I think that is good.”

But it’s not just going to be people with “extreme doubt” (whatever that means) who experience chilling effects. It’s going to be every scientist with a theory that suggests global warming isn’t as bad as we think it is — every researcher who theorizes there’s a bias in the satellite record or a natural carbon sink that’s more effective than expected. When trying to decide whether to pursue the research, they’ll have to ask themselves if it’s worth the risk of severe legal problems, and they’ll have to line up advisors, assistants, partners, and funding agencies that are also willing to face the risk. Or they could play it safe and pick a different research topic.

That’s not how science is supposed to work. That’s not how debate over public policy is supposed to work in a democracy. Environmentalists had no trouble understanding this concept back when Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli was engaged in a bogus investigation of Michael Mann and the University of Virginia for supposedly manipulating data to prove global warming.

It’s not a question of who is right and who is wrong. It’s not even about who is lying and who is telling the truth. It’s about how we as a society are going to make decisions together. It’s far better that we talk things out and let everyone be heard than that we enlist attorneys general to imprison or impoverish those with whom we disagree. The best remedy for bad speech is good speech. Not a RICO prosecution.


For several months now, I’ve kind of been planning to vote in the Republican primary here in Illinois, just so I can vote against Donald Trump. As the day finally approached, however, I gave it a little more thought and realized there was a better way to use my vote. (It may not be worth much, but I might as well maximize its impact.)

While the Presidential elections have been getting all the news coverage, a different election has been attracting attention here in Chicago. That’s the vote to replace Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez, a movement that has grown massively, ever since the video from the LaQuan McDonald shooting by a police officer was released to the public in November.

This seems to have been driven on the ground by a mostly grass roots movement (except for support from a few key criminal justice reform supporters) led by a collection of mostly black community organizations like Black Youth Project 100, Assata’s Daughters, and Black Lives Matter Chicago, although I get most of my news about if from following Prison Culture. I can’t go an hour on Twitter without seeing the #ByeAnita hashtag floating across my screen. Especially on this election day.

Bye Anita Selfie

To be honest, I don’t think Anita Alvarez is the sole reason police in Cook County seem to be getting away with murder. It’s a nationwide issue, and I doubt Alvarez is much worse in that respect than many other chief prosecutors. But the folks running the #ByeAnita campaign decided to make sure that she faces the consequences nonetheless.

And she will.

Even Trump Has Freedom of Speech

I was disappointed that the Trump rally on Friday here in Chicago was cancelled. It’s not that I was planning to go, but it was disappointing the way it happened. And I’m disappointed that folks on the left are applauding it or taking credit for it.

To be sure, Trump brought it on himself. The aphorisms are plentiful: You reap what you sow. Live by the sword, die by the sword. What goes around, comes around. Trump applauded and even encouraged violence at his rallies. He set the rules of the contest, and now he’s complaining that his opponents are playing by them.

It’s actually kind of a law of nature: Trump’s embrace of violence unsurprisingly drives away the peaceful protesters, which leaves behind the kinds of protesters who aren’t afraid to mix it up, and probably even attracts protesters who look forward to busting some Trumpkin heads. So it’s not surprising that things eventually blew up. Trump and his supporters got the response that they created. Thugs begat thugs.


Even Donald Trump has the right to free speech. I’m not talking about the legal First Amendment right, which doesn’t really apply to private action. I’m talking about the basic moral premise that underlies the First Amendment: Within some very broad limits, people have a right to say what they want. Whatever they want. Even if other people don’t like it. Even if they themselves have no respect for freedom of speech.

And perhaps even more important than Donald Trump’s right to speak is the right of other people to hear what he has to say. People who come to his rallies ought to be allowed to hear him speak, and the rest of us should respect that right. That doesn’t mean opponents can’t protest his speech. There’s a difference between speaking out against Trump and blocking Trump from speaking. When Donald Trump is speaking to cheering supporters and crowds of protesters are shouting in the streets and the police are keeping the peace rather than taking sides, that’s American free speech at, well…perhaps not at its finest, but certainly at its most exuberant.

On the other hand, if anyone violently attacked Trump supporters, I fully support arresting them for it. (And vice versa, of course.) Similarly, if protesters disrupt Trump’s speech, I have no problem with them being escorted from the premises. They have a right to speak, but they don’t have the right to prevent Trump from speaking in a forum assembled for that purpose, nor do they have the right to prevent others from hearing what he’s saying.

Granted, I’m not entirely convinced that anyone other than Donald Trump was responsible for shutting down the Donald Trump rally. At the time he called it off, there hadn’t been any injuries or arrests in Chicago. I think it’s possible he saw a chance to skip a rally and blame it on the opposition, and so he took it, and now he’s using it to play the victim card. But as Donald Trump might have said, I like Presidential candidates who don’t cancel their rallies. Who’s the pussy now, Donald?


When the cancellation of the rally was announced, the only proper response from any protest organizers who really respect free speech should have been either (1) an apology for letting things get out of hand, (2) criticism of the rally organizers for not providing enough security for Trump to feel safe, or (3) calling Trump out for cancelling his own rally and blaming it on the free speech of others. Depending on what you believe caused the rally to be cancelled, any one of these might be appropriate.

Some of the protesting organizations, however, are taking credit for stopping Trump from speaking. That’s nothing to be proud of. Even if he quit for reasons of his own, claiming credit shows they have little respect for free speech. And if they actually did shut him down from fear of violence, that’s even worse.

In our open society, the remedy for bad speech is supposed to be good speech, not violence. Trump doesn’t understand that. “Freedom of speech” is just a buzz phrase he uses when he senses it might help him. The rest of us should try to be better than that.