Pretty much everything I've ever seen from "reason.com" is material promoting a libertarian viewpoint. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's pretty much just politics.
Probably because its the website for a libertarian magazine? They don't even pretend that's not the case, unlike something on Fox News...
From the about page:
Reason is the monthly print magazine of "free minds and free markets." It covers politics, culture, and ideas through a provocative mix of news, analysis, commentary, and reviews. Reason provides a refreshing alternative to right-wing and left-wing opinion magazines by making a principled case for liberty and individual choice in all areas of human activity.
The point being, for those who missed it that this site is not for the discussion of politics. There are plenty of other places to trot out the same old tired discussions.
"Loser pays" doesn't seem consistent with libertarian philosophy, in that it advocates government interference in what should be a private economic matter: how one pays for one's legal representation. It is consistent with corporatism, however, which I suspect is closer to Reason's true philosophy.
I've noticed that in most of the US, "Libertarian" means the opposite of what it does elsewhere. Aside from the Tea Party 2.0-esque "libertarians", most libertarian philosophy is consistent with preventing private corporations from being bullies.
It's a bit counter-intuitive, until you consider that there is no freedom if the rich man makes the rules.
Would the downvoters care to explain the glowing praise for European-style regulation in a publication supposedly devoted to libertarian ideals? What is the argument for consistency there?
Downvoting a legitimate argument (as opposed to say, an ad hominem attack) without supporting it with your own counter-argument is laziness.
