Libertarian My A**

Despite the vulgarity and crudeness of this article, it was food for thought…

Lately, I’ve heard more people (men, mostly) proclaim themselves “libertarian.” My gut feeling tells me that most of these new “converts” aren’t really libertarian, or that they don’t understand what libertarianism is and that they are really just angry at how far off the rails the Republican Party — their natural habitat — has drifted under the Moron in Chief. They are doing this to psychologically remove themselves from the mess they created by voting for Bush and for, until a year or so ago, blindly voting a straight GOP Party ticket for as far back as they can remember. These “libertarians” are Republicans without the guilt by association or, rather, without the remorse.

By comparison to the utter ineptitude and willful stupidity of the Bush Regime, “libertarianism” sounds smart and sexy, ruggedly individualistic and hardboiled. Famous libertarians include such hardboiled legumes as Ayn Rand, Grover Norquist and Pat Buchanan. “Famous” and “libertarian” don’t live in the same sentence for good reasons. It is a philosophy meant for a fantasy world, a world with, say, 300,000 people in it, tops. At the moment, the U.S. is home to 300 million people, and the planet is teetering under the weight and environmental demands of 7 billion people and both totals are rising daily as the ice caps melt away available land. Libertarianism is an intellectual luxury that a lot of angry Republicans are affording themselves.

The article continues here.

17 Responses to “Libertarian My A**”

  1. Tom Bryant Says:

    A left-wing author writes that he doesn’t like the right-wing portions of Libertarian political views.

    We could probably find an article from a right-wing author attacking the left-wing portions of Libertarian thought.

  2. matt Says:

    And both articles would be so full of caricatures, ad hominems, and guilt-by-association stretches as to render themselves entirely useless.

    Libertarianism isn’t perfect, and individual libertarians are often horriffic, but the libertarian principle of self-ownership is the only thing that makes society even vaguely workable.

  3. Jay Matthews Says:

    The writer is obviously taking some general Libertarian philosophies, applying extreme examples, and saying “see how ridiculous this is?

    His social security check remark is comical. Why should someone turn down money from a program they’ve paid into?

    However, given an opportunity to do so I’m confident the majority of Libertarians (and probably most if not all that post on this site) would not turn down the opportunity to opt out of the program.

  4. Fred C. Says:

    I stopped reading when it identified Pat Buchanan as a libertarian.

  5. globalist_elitist Says:

    Another moronic Malthusian caught up on population.

    The world can never have too many people. It is a scientific impossibility.

  6. Trent Hill Says:

    GE,

    We agree. Is this the 3rd or 4th time? hah.

    Yes, its called an environment’s Population Capacity.

  7. Ghoststrider Says:

    Wow, score yet another one for idiots who think they know what libertarianism is about, but really have no clue. If we took all these people and shot them out into space, we’d only have 500 million on Earth. And it’d be a paradise, to be sure.

  8. Jackcjackson Says:

    It’s not even a snack.

  9. Kris Overstreet Says:

    Actually, upon reading the article, it’s absolutely dead-on accurate.

    If you don’t like what this article says, then remember it the next time a platform vote comes up at state or national conventions- because not only was all of this in our national platform at one point, but in some cases the writer is making direct quotations from it.

    This really is what we look like to the outside world- a bunch of lunatics and greed-heads who have absolutely no consideration for how our actions affect others- and no sense of reality whatever. Don’t call the author an idiot- look at what our party, the Libertarian Party, is doing WRONG. If we don’t correct our message so that the core message of freedom isn’t drowned out by corn-flake positions, the best we can expect is to be ignored.

    The worst we can expect is to be heard, understood, and then firmly rejected by the voters for the next fifty years.

  10. timothy west Says:

    The only thing wrong with the LP is that it’s got a bunch of libertarians in it. ;D

  11. globalist_elitist Says:

    Kris - I am a moderate, pragmatic “libertarian.” The problem I see with the LP is that its members are not greedy enough.

  12. Tom Bryant Says:

    G_E writes:

    “The world can never have too many people. It is a scientific impossibility.”

    But the world can have too many stupid people.

    I have a can of peanuts sitting on my desk. There is a warning on the label that says, and I’m not making this up: “Product may contain peanuts”

    I don’t know what is worse:
    1) That someone bought peanuts, knowing he was allergic to peanuts, and got a reaction because he didn’t know that peanuts contained peanuts
    2) I’m eating peanuts that may or MAY NOT be peanuts according to the warning label (if they aren’t peanuts, what are they?).
    3) I have enough time to notice and post about it.

  13. Carl Says:

    I tend to agree with Kris. Far too many Libertarians still think in 18th century U.S. terms where population density was very small—thanks to smallpox wiping most of the natives. Issues of externalities become extremely important when people live on small plots of land or in cities. It is very hard to safely use a rifle within a densely populated area. The “I can do anything I want on my property” can work pretty good when people have a few hundred acres apiece. My grandparents could dump their own trash because they owned a square mile of land.

    Robert Heinlein wrote that restrictions were inevitable when the population density rose. See “Time Enough for Love.” Wise words. That said, libertarians could put forth a useful urban agenda. The Democrats could definitely use some competition in the inner cities.

    In the 18th century the top weapons of the day could not penetrate the walls of a well-built home. Go to Yorktown and you’ll find brick houses with cannon balls embedded in them. Offensive technology has greatly outstripped defensive technology since then, alas.

    All this said, even in 18th century America, there were pubic goods problems. Overhunting was rampant. Many species went extinct at that time.

  14. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Tim West writes: “The only thing wrong with the LP is that it’s got a bunch of libertarians in it.”

    I’m sure you’ve been doing your best to correct that little ‘problem’, Tim.

  15. sam i am Says:

    Sorry, when was the immigrant-hating part of the platform?

  16. globalist_elitist Says:

    Susan - That was a really classless shot.

  17. timothy west Says:

    Yeah, I quit. Renounced the oath and left the building, and registered IND. My monthly pledge and donations went with me.

    The thought occurred to me that it has to be the height of arrogance to assume that one has to be a LP member and sign that self defeating pledge to believe in more personal liberty.

    Since I am no longer a (L)ibertarian, go on bout your business.

Leave a Reply