Conservative authoress Ann Coulter and noted libertarian John Stossel on Thursday battled over the differences between social conservatism and libertarianism.
At one point during the discussion, Stossel asked Coulter for her take on the drug war.
“Libertarians and pot,” she laughed. “This is why people think libertarians are pu**ies.”
She explained:
We’re living in a country that is 70-percent socialist, the government takes 60 percent of your money. They are taking care of your health care, of your pensions. They’re telling you who you can hire, what the regulations will be. And you want to suck up to your little liberal friends and say, “Oh, but we want to legalize pot.”
“You know,” she added, “if you’re a little more manly you would tell them what your position on employment discrimination is. How about that? But it’s always ‘We want to legalize pot.’”
But you didn’t really think libertarians were going to let Coulter go unchallenged, did you?
Enter Reason’s Nick Gillespie [yeah, yeah, we redacted some words]…:
I enjoy Ann Coulter’s rants, perhaps especially when she is trying to antagonize libertarians … Oddly, La Coulter’s slagging is occasioned not by libertarians’ non-interventionist chops but by…our stance on the drug war.
[…]
Coulter has a long history of impugning the manhood of real and imagined ideological opponents. Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, National Review stopped carrying her column after she advocated the deportation of all Arabic aliens in America and more; she responded by calling the NRO crew “girly-boys.”
It may not have the rhetorical power of “I’m Spartacus!” but I’m happy to declare “I’m a pu**y!” That is, if being in favor of pot legalization, a restrained foreign policy, marriage equality, non-mandatory health care, voluntary association in the workplace, open borders, and other libertarian positions means being a pu**y.
And you, gentle readers of whatever sex and whatever disposition: Are you pu**ies, too? Here’s hoping.
–
RELATED:
Follow Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) on Twitter
Featured image courtesy Reason.
Submitting your tip... please wait!
KennonG
Feb. 24, 2013 at 4:18pmNice article! Some points:
Most pro-Libertarians are women, so Coulter’s insult is pretty strange, but to her credit she’s trying to understand libertarianism but doesn’t get that things like legalization are happening all around her. Gillespie is a great guy, but a Libertarian ‘heavyweight’? Not exactly, but he is a very fine pro-Lib publicist from what I see.
A lot of people here seem pretty confused about Libertarianism. See http://www.libertarianinternational.org the non-partisan Libertarian International Organization for how people are spreading more voluntary and rights-based eco-solutions in every country.
Report this comment
JimCS
Feb. 25, 2013 at 6:10am“Non-partisan Libertarian International Organization” makes no sense. If it is Libertarian, then it is partisan. It’s like saying, “the non-religious Southern Baptist Convention.”
Report this comment
sbenard
Feb. 24, 2013 at 1:07pmNo!
Report this comment
media-bias-steals-elections
Feb. 23, 2013 at 4:23pmI thought it was a witty way of saying, look, you create too many laws that restrict everything, you think you have your little wedding cake all dolled up, then you get in front of the preacher, he asks for the ring, and you don’t have one?
Well what do you call legalizing pot, but keeping employment discrimination (more like requirement) other than something to laugh at like you would a young boy wanting a kiss from a grown woman, or a school boy asking to marry the school teacher?
Very clever, all without coming out in support of the issue one way or the other, practically giving you a reason not to get too excited and “wet your diaper” or get excited?
I love her style of writing and her talking, she gives you things to latch on to, oh, yeah, I get it, it’s not about you, its about how we look at this issue or that issue? To appreciate her writing even more, you HAVE to listen to her, once you get the inflections and tone of voice that she typically uses, it is just a joy and hillarious to read her work?
Look at it this way, she could have disagreed, but she knew, in order to give you what you wanted, by teasing you about manhood, you would either keep pushing the topic and recognize something you are missing from the conversation, or attack her on a personal level, elevating her by giving her supporters something to write about? There is real genius in her method, I wish more men and women would act like her?
Report this comment
Crazyotto
Feb. 25, 2013 at 12:31amAsk her why she supports the pig Christie and his progressive stands on gun control, patriot act and host of other anti-constitutional stands.. Coulter is a fraud..
Report this comment
Founder
Feb. 23, 2013 at 8:10amTwo reasons that I’ll never be part of the Libertarian party: “Marriage equality” and “open borders”.
If you’re too stupid to figure out that “marriage” should have no ties, whatsoever, to government and that open borders would result in the “new world order” that you jackwads are always screaming about, then stop telling me how “smart” libertarians are. You’re really just a bunch of spoiled kids who knee-jerk just like Republicans and Democrats.
Report this comment
Norm D. Plume
Mar. 1, 2013 at 4:09pmLibertarians want marriage taken away from government and devolved to churches. Legal contract stuff should be handled by civil unions, which are not discriminatory.
I don’t agree with open borders, in the presence of the welfare state, but in defense of libertarians, neither do most of us. Without a welfare state, those who want to work will come here to work, and that’s not necessarily bad, so long as it’s done within a solid legal framework. I still don’t like it, though.
Opening the borders without dismantling the welfare state is silly, but then, doing just about anything without dismantling the welfare state is silly.
Report this comment
The-Real-Enrico
Feb. 22, 2013 at 6:03pmI was with him until he said open borders.
That is not a libertarian position in most places. This libertarian wants more and better border security.
Without a border we would not and could not be a sovereign nation.
Report this comment
media-bias-steals-elections
Feb. 23, 2013 at 4:26pmThe reason why “open border” should never be used is because the media will not tell you the difference between crossing the border and signing up for food stamps when ever they talk about a story?
Those two little words are used to swing elections, not report the news?
Report this comment
islandkine
Feb. 22, 2013 at 5:55pmCavallo is right! People should learn about their political ideologies before claiming to represent them! Libertarianism is about individual choice AND the accompanying individual responsibility. True libertarians aren’t for the government dictating ANYTHING about marriage. The government has no say about social matters in a libertarian utopia. I was shocked in 2008 to find that the “Libertarian” Party was supporting government sanctioned gay marriage. That shows that it’s not just the Republican and Democrats that have been infiltrated by progressives! Ann was right about legalizing drugs. She took the libertarian stance! Libertarians would NEVER legalize drugs when healthcare and the legal sale and production of drugs would all be controlled by government!
Report this comment
Norm D. Plume
Mar. 1, 2013 at 4:13pmAllowing the government to have control over such things, is not a libertarian position. You have a right to decide what does, and what does not, go into your body.
Progressives (Democrat AND Republican — see Texas) will advocate for mandatory vaccinations, even going so far as to make it legal for minors to consent to vaccinations (again: see Texas, NOW.) Libertarians will not do so.
Similarly, Progressives (Democrat AND Republican) will try to control society by criminalizing the use of substances, some of which are healthy and wonderful (raw milk), some of which are destructive as Hell (alcohol.)
Pragmatically: When is the last time you heard of two beer distributors or brewers shooting it out over turf? It doesn’t happen, because alcohol is legal. Bootleggers don’t make NEARLY as much money now as they did during the 1920s, BECAUSE OF PROHIBITION.
Report this comment
Verceofreason
Feb. 22, 2013 at 5:45pmWhy did she call them puppies?
Is there something wrong with puppies?
Report this comment
BenzinVasser
Feb. 22, 2013 at 4:26pmOpen borders?!…..I don’t know any Libertarians that want open borders, we’re already over occupied…I’m not even sure if I understood his rant, at all, it didn’t make sense. He sounded like a flaming liberal to me.
Report this comment
Norm D. Plume
Mar. 1, 2013 at 4:14pmHe’s a “too-pure” libertarian.
Open borders is insane.
Report this comment
gyro
Feb. 22, 2013 at 4:15pmwho is Nick Gillespie ?
Report this comment
00100111
Feb. 22, 2013 at 4:11pmIxnay the open borders. It sounds cute and all “Oh we’re so fair and stuff” but hardcore Libertarianism does not last long in a democracy. Open borders will only lead to more and more welfare addicted democrat voters that will vote you out of existence.
Report this comment
OUTLAW_WEALTH
Feb. 23, 2013 at 7:04amThe founders were libertarian, in this REPUBLIC. They specifically eschewed democracies in any form. You should re-read the Federalist Papers.
Report this comment
yohannbiimu
Feb. 22, 2013 at 3:46pmLibertarians are their worst enemies too. I mean, if you disagree with them on ANY position, then to them you are an enemy of freedom and liberty, and they place you in the same camp as the collectivists. There is no possible way to have a rational discussion with the vast majority of you folks, because you inevitably conclude that you are MUCH WORSE than a “p-word” if you disagree with them about anything. If we’re “statists,” then you folks are stone-cold fascists.
The collectivists have gotten where they are through incrementalism. They’ve won their victories one by one over the past century or so, while folks like you call for all of their hard-won, long sought-after victories to just go away tomorrow. That is not realistic. If we’re going to get ourselves back to before “progressives” decided to slowly erode our constitutional rights; we must do it piece by piece, incrementally. Unfortunately, too many “purists” are out there who have no sense of political reality whatsoever.
Report this comment
Norm D. Plume
Mar. 1, 2013 at 4:18pmThe practical end of this matter is:
We will, eventually, have a system without these social programs, because the system which promotes and sustains them is itself unsustainable.
We’d better prepare for this. Competing currencies being made legal would be a reasonable way to cushion the fall, pragmatically. Failing to prepare, and failing to offer solutions against the collapse, will result in the death of civil society and the rise of totalitarianism here.
Report this comment
Kevin M
Feb. 22, 2013 at 2:45pm“I’m happy to declare “I’m a pu**y!” That is, if being in favor of pot legalization, a restrained foreign policy, marriage equality, non-mandatory health care, voluntary association in the workplace, open borders, and other libertarian positions means being a pu**y.”
Except that’s not at all what she said. She called libertarians that because there are so many important issues to be resolved or fixed, and 80% of the time all a libertarian will talk about is legalizing weed. It really is annoying to those of us who don’t care for drugs.
Report this comment
00100111
Feb. 22, 2013 at 4:14pmKeep in mind there is a difference between Libertarians (capital L) and libertarians (lower case l). Capital L Libertarians are the hard core, hate you if you disagree with them, worship Ron Paul as a deity, just as fascist as the left if you don’t march in lock step with their “Libertarian” ideas. Lower case l libertarians are most like the small govt minarchist paleo-conservatives. I’m of the latter. I respect RP, I like a lot of what he says, but not all. Libertarianism is an idea, it’s not supposed to be a political party.
Report this comment
Norm D. Plume
Mar. 1, 2013 at 4:22pmOngoing right now, if you hadn’t been paying attention, is the effort by several states to just outright legalize weed.
Advocating for the legalization of pot is consistent with Libertarian Party positions, and with small-L libertarian principles. Shying away from this issue, while it is hot and happening, is giving up a chance to fly the banner. It would be *STOOPID*.
Please, libertarians, continue advocating for the end of the War on Some Drugs.
Report this comment
Ragnars Repos
Feb. 22, 2013 at 2:18pmConservatives are their own worst enemy, that is plain; that is also why the left is pounding them.
Those who allow the left to destroy the republic without opposition are calling other people “p******”?
Conservatives have far more power than libertarians, but what’s happening to the country? Where are these mythical conservative warriors?
Conservatives are statists, watered-down socialists in denial.
Anne is some kind of man-hater, or something is going on with her and her father, or something. Strange that she hates on males like she does.
Report this comment
yohannbiimu
Feb. 22, 2013 at 3:32pmLibertarians are their own worst enemies because they’ll call anyone MUCH WORSE than pu**ies if they do not agree with every position that they are for. They are just as much the imposers as the “statists” that they decry, because they demand every position to be put into place immediately, when the country isn’t ready for that.
The collectivists are smart (which indeed seems to be a oxymoron), because they’ve put everything that they have wanted transitionally. They’ve done their evil incrementally, over the past century. They’ve won their victories over decades. We need to win our victories one piece at a time, but too many “purists” out there want every collectivist institution removed, and have the country go back to the first decade of the twentieth century tomorrow.
That isn’t going to happen. Changing back to our republican form of government must come incrementally, but unfortunately there are very few “libertarians” who have any sense of true political reality.
Report this comment
Conservachic
Feb. 22, 2013 at 5:33pmRagnars, review your response. You end up attacking Ann personally. I get retorts to groups in a stereotypical way (as in ‘liberals are pu**ies’ or ‘conservatives are their own worse enemies’), but to attack Ann’s social aspects, PERSONALLY, is like another group of folks: Liberals.
Libertarians like you are no different than the activist Leftists, they always attack in a personal way–whether it be in physical or personal life ways.
Report this comment
howardfine13
Feb. 22, 2013 at 1:41pmLet’s start with getting non-mandatory healthcare. I’ll be glad to work back from there. Like Coulter said, I refuse to pay hospital bills for chemotherapy treatment for pot smokers. Also, I refuse to pay wellfare checks for lazy pot-smoking p—– either.
Report this comment
KidCharlemagne
Feb. 22, 2013 at 1:59pmhowardfine13
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 1:41pm
Let’s start with getting non-mandatory healthcare.
=============================
Well…..you’d better listen a little closer to Ann Coulter then:
“No one is claiming that the Constitution gives each person an unalienable right not to buy insurance.”
AnnCoulter.com (Feb 1. 2012): “Three Cheers For RomneyCare!”
Report this comment
howardfine13
Feb. 22, 2013 at 1:37pmLet’s start with getting non-mandatory healthcare. I’ll be glad to work back from there. Like Coulter said, I refuse to pay hospital bills for chemotherapy treatment for pot smokers. Also, I refuse to pay wellfare checks for lazy pot-smoking p****es either.
Report this comment
yohannbiimu
Feb. 22, 2013 at 1:22pmWow…If open borders, pot legalization, and “marriage equality” are positions one must have in order to be a “libertarian,” then I am GLADLY not one. If they have positions that are REQUIRED to have in order to be a “libertarian,” which one can debate against using an intelligent argument, then libertarians are as fascistic as everyone that they decry against.
If there’s a position that is demonstrably wrong (just about everything that Obama us pushing upon us that are destroying our constitution), then what’s wrong with people coming together and fighting those evil positions? Why must libertarians push “marriage equality” upon us, when marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution? Really, what does the government have to do with the matter at all?
Regarding pot legalization, what’s wrong with community standards? I mean, if a county or town votes against the use of any such drugs (be it pot or liquor), then that is their right to have such standards. Also, I think that it is an employer’s right to know if prospective employee is using pot or alcohol before the hires a bad fit into his business.
Regarding “open borders,” that is simply insane. That is a call for national suicide. You might as well allow everything else Obama wants if you want anyone and everyone to come and go as they please.
Report this comment
Cavallo
Feb. 22, 2013 at 2:19pmMy problem isn’t their stances, nor is Anne’s problem their platforms. The problem is the PRIORITY of their platform.
YES, Let’s get Government out of marriage. But that means keeping government from forcing hospitals, daycare, churches, and other assorted organizations from accepting people’s definition of marriage.
YES, Lets have a freer less bureaucratic immigration policy, but first lets get rid of the welfare state. All of it, as well as the taxes that the government rapes from us from our paychecks.
YES, lets legalize drugs, but first lets get rid of the welfare state. I don’t want to be paying for some stranger’s drug habit. I don’t want to pay for their medical care, I don’t want to pay for them to sit on some couch shooting up.
Get rid of the welfare state first and all the other restrictive stuff really is no longer needed. The problem with Libertarians is they want their drugs legalized FIRST, they want open borders NOW. I consider myself a libertarian but I do not agree with the order of the party’s priorities.
Report this comment
DiRT
Feb. 22, 2013 at 1:16pmI’m glad to see that Nick missed the entire point. Congrats.
Report this comment