This is a good piece. The fact that a major libertarian voice's knee-jerk reaction to disruptive black collective action is "run them over" does not reflect well on that movement, but it continues the proud libertarian tradition of hostility to black political action going back to at least Barry Goldwater and Ayn Rand.

Noah, is it really so hard to concede that someone has made a valid point that might require you to modify your position? You're really beginning to sound a lot like Trump.

I'm not justifying anything Noah. I'm just explaining cause and effect to you. What's next, your defense of drunk drivers who make it home safely from a charity event? What about looters who steal and vandalize mom and pop businesses because they are angry? As for being "libertarianish", what does that have to do with being a responsible citizen. I'm neither pro, nor, con cop. I am in favor of individuals being responsible for their actions and that includes both civil servants and civilians equally. After all, I don't recall MLK saying that he had a dream of causing innocent people harm in order to get his way.

I KNEW Rooster was on bath salts! When I confronted him about taking bath salts while chaperoning a middle school dance with Debbie Boehner in Arizona, he spur clawed me.

Is there some kind of pre-agreement going on here? Did you all agree to pretend nobody in the cars was threatened? No cars were damaged with bricks or rocks? A truck wasn't burned? Reginald Denny was a fiction? Reynolds made it clear that driving on was the thing to if one is threatened or reasonably fears for his safety--the latter being a self-defense defense. Did you all decide to pretend this was not an issue? What happened? Of course, he could have said, "drive on", in which case you would have been screaming that he meant to pursue and run down peaceful protestors. Tell you what. Next time there's a riot, go get yourself stuck in a protestor's traffic jam. No matter what happens, don't take the trans out of park. And open your windows. Because you wouldn't want to be against free speech. Sheesh. You all figured the rest of us were as dumb as you are pretending to be? Come on.

I'll take that as a compliment, coming from someone so ignorant he can't tell the difference between a tactic and a goal, and someone so sloppy he can't even spell correctly when he's trying to put someone down, which is the one time you want to get the spelling correct, if you're trying to look smart,. which is normally your goal above all else, being the pretentious pseudo-intellectual you are

Also, aren't you all mostly libertarianish? why the eagerness to side with cops all of a sudden?

Beck, it's hard not to be condescendign with you because you have no idea what you're talking about in most instances. Also,you're super touchy about the fact that you don't know much, which makes it hard to resist tweaking you.// We all realize that MLK protested on highways, right? A. Philip Randolph threatened to shut down Washington during wartime. Civil rights protestors deliberately interfered with public transit. And so forth. "protest should not inconvenience anyone ever" is just not how successful protests have ever been conducted. And yes, protests are meant to cause inconvenience, because inconvenience draws attention and makes people uncomfortable, which in turn forces elites to take action.// But...you're all pretty much confirming the point of the piece, which was that Reynolds was not joking when he suggested running over protestors, and that, in fact, people (not Nick, but many people) find that idea congenial.// Texan, how'd you feel if a loved one were shot to death by a cop, and then people came out of the woodwork to concocting hypothetical scenarios to justify to themselves that your efforts to change things made you the aggressor?

Blocking highways is worse than a tweet. Whatever happened to sticks n stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me? I'm inclined to agree with Clint Eastwood on this one - young people protesting on highways are clueless cowards.

Yes, Noah is reflexively condescending, which he substitutes for an argument. He says that protest is "meant" to inconvenience people, indicating he can't tell the difference between goals and tactics. Protest is "meant" to effect social and political change. One tactic of such protest could be inconveniencing people. Another tactic could be making sure you don't inconvenience other people. It's helpful when being condescending to at least be correct.

I'm 100 percent with Texan on this one. I don't care if you're elite or dirt-poor, blocking highways as a form of protest is heinous. As Texan said, people need to get to hospitals, sometimes life and death situations. Missing the first 45 minutes of a movie, no big deal. But, as an elite, Noah, you never miss an opportunity to hand down wisdom from Mt. Krugman.

Noah, how'd you feel if a loved one couldn't get to the hospital on time because of a protest? Or if a loved one was shot during a home invasion because police could not get there in time because protesters blocked the way? I'm all for protesting injustices but very much against hurting the innocent in order to make a point.