Long piece on libertarianism at LOOG, which concludes with the following:
So what’s going on here? Why do libertarians deviate so strongly from our supposed class interests? These interests, remember, demand that we (1) love eminent domain (2) love the Drug War and (3) love the Forever War. Among others. For a devotee of class analysis, the choices are few. We seem forced into some combination of the following:
1. Libertarians say that they oppose policy x, but everything they do ultimately supports the Republicans anyway, so they frustrate any chance of real reform.
2. Activism on policy x is futile. It only diverts resources that should be spent elsewhere. (Optionally: Your evil overlords know this and encourage it.)
3. Activism on policy x is not as helpful to the working class as activism on policy y. (Optionally: The same.)
4. Activism on policy x is done merely for obfuscation. (Optionally: Ditto.)
5. Not all libertarians are as great as you are, Jason…and to take one or more of these on every single issue, no less. A complicated balancing act. But even in isolation, there are problems with each.
In almost every practical matter, the libertarians I follow almost always engage in a pattern of behavior that emboldens and empowers the GOP. “But John, you are just a partisan hack who only hates libertarians now that you are a Democrat, and you unthinkingly attack them when they are critical of Democrats because of that! And Ronald Bailey writes about global warming also, too!”
I may be a partisan hack, but I’m not an idiot. I loved libertarians when I was a Republican and enthusiastic about the so-called conservative agenda, because I know a friend of the cause when I see one. The economic agenda of libertarians and Republicans the last thirty years has radically increased inequality and decreased freedom. From my current perspective, every “success” of libertarians in the past few decades has been at the expense of the majority of the country, and deregulation has led to more government involvement to deal with the cockups from our Galtian geniuses.
But whatever, I’m cranky and not really awake yet, so flame on.
Emma
I’m in a hurry today, so just let me co-sign and get on with cleaning and laundry.
Mark-NC
You said “has radically increased inequality and freedom”.
I’m gussing you meant to say: has radically increased inequality and decreased freedom.
Yes? No?
Anyway, IMHO, Libertarian is just like TeaBagger. Just a Republican with a different T-shirt.
Villago Delenda Est
Actually, for most Americans, the “libertarian” ideology will reduce their freedom as there economic prospects diminish.
If “libertarians” were actually concerned about enhancing liberty for ALL, they’d be militant economic redistributionists, but down, not up, as they are now.
But they’re not. They’re actually neo-feudalists. Concerned with maximizing liberty for a small group (of which they, as individuals, are members) while essentially enslaving the vast majority.
General Stuck
The types of libertarians like those at the Loog, remind me of so many children trying to rationalize a way to not be treated like children.
Reading posts on this nonsense takes me back to high school, fuming in the penalty box before the principle, for fucking up once again, and having my freedoms impinged for getting busted playing hooky at the local pool hall.
alwhite
Anyone that studied history knew exactly what the outcome of all this libertarian bullshit would be. The nation went through waves of boom then bust over and over. The one in the 20’s was different though because it was obviously brought on by the wealthy and there were enough clear heads to vote in FDR and the New Deal. That was followed by 60 years without boom then bust. There was no need for a huge bail out, there were no panics, no bank runs.
Then we spent 30 years undoing all that in the name of freedom. It was freedom for the masters of the universe to rob and plunder and they did it in spades.
MikeJ
@General Stuck: You are Huntz Hall and I claim my five pounds.
asiangrrlMN
Fuckin’ A, Cole. This shit would be offensive if it weren’t so fucking boring. Wank wank wank. Go do it in your bedroom, asshole.
Kirk Spencer
The essence of libertarianism is anarchism constrained by plutocracy.
There shall be no rules except those which favor the wealthy.
I have not yet found evidence in libertarian actions and opinions to disprove this belief.
General Stuck
@MikeJ:
I’m a little ashamed i had to google Huntz Hall, but yea, Dead End Kids.
Face
I cant wait to see what ED Kain posts here in response…..wait, nevermind.
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@alwhite: Thanks. You said what I wanted to, better than I would have. Thus I am clearly not needed here, save perhaps for comic relief. So I will head off to the symposium I’m attending this afternoon, and offer what humorous ability I have left later.
Alex Gurney Halleck-S.
Above all, libertarians are intellectual wankers. I don’t need 5000 words to explain that the principle of “every man for himself” will lead to a society ruled by those with the most wealth.
IM
1 and opf course 5 too: There is a spectrum of libertarianism obviously.
And neither “war on drugs” or war in general ahs anything to with class interest. You can have a capitalist society without the war on drugs – like in the Gilded Age.
dr. bloor
So are we correct in assuming the posters there are Loogies?
piratedan
but but but… without owners there wouldn’t be any football (or so I am told) there would be no teeming masses to exploit with our own personal gladiator games without the largesse of the owners, after all, look at the financial risks that they are taking, this lockout is all the players fault!
sorry, just purging after spending time on my favorite team’s non-sponsored/affilliated website
Davis X. Machina
Surely ‘clear heads’ have nothing to do with it — so long as you have a universal franchise, you’ll never have a working majority of clear heads.
We’ve simply not seen, as bad as things are, a level of immiseration sufficient to lead to changes of that magnitude. In 1932 U6 was pushing 45%. U3 was twice, or more, of what it is today. And even under those circumstances, in the then-developed world, the UK, the US, Canada, France, Scandinavia, all came out of the Depression with the same constitutions and social orders they had going in.
Things are, to borrow debate lingo, bad, but ‘minor-repair’ bad.
Luthe
If libertarians are supposed to be against the Drug War and the Forever War, then why the fuck aren’t they over here with us DFHs? The “law and order” “strong on defense” GOP sure as hell ain’t going to be supporting legalization and DoD cut-backs.
As for eminent domain, I will remind the court that the abuse in the Kelo case was not an unlawful taking of property, it was a taking of property in order to give it to a private company. If Suzette Kelo’s house had been taken to build a school or a firehouse it would have been one thing, but to take it and give it to Pfizer in the name of “economic development” is something else. I think most of us corporate-hating liberals agree with that.
So, if the libertarians and the lefties are in agreement on drugs, war, and eminent domain, then why do the libertarians keep on supporting the right? Why, one might think it has to do with money! Specifically, keeping money in libertarian pockets. But that would be right in line with their class interests, and we all know libertarians would never do anything like that. /snarcasm
RossInDetroit
Libertarian freedom = liberty to die in a gutter for want of the most minimal social safety net.
Cheap Jim
There is also the possibility that most “libertarians” are lying sacks of dung, adopting a pose to try to cover their inherently antisocial nature. Not caring about their own arguments, but instead on creating a climate where they can increase their own bottom line, they do what they can to tear down anything that gets in their way. That would cover the observed phenomena, too.
R. Johnston
@dr. bloor:
Yes. And as loogies they are useful only for getting one out. It’s not surprising that the entire universe can score off of numbers 2-5 on some random loogie list.
asiangrrlMN
P.S. Smokey the Bear at the top of the page is obscuring the first line of every post.
@Cheap Jim: Yes. I see the merits of your argument. ::Nods head sagely::
Davis X. Machina
They both valorise property above all. The right is all about ‘what you own is what you are’ — they’d repeal the Thirteenth Amendment if they could — and the liberty of actually-existing libertarianism is skewed towards the freedom to own stuff, and the freedom to use and employ and alienate it.
ErikdaRed
Again, no flame here, John.
You pretty much nailed it.
RossInDetroit
Thank you, John for this opportunity to give the Libertards yet another well deserved ass-booting.
I hope your day improves.
Dave
The Libertarian movement is stuck in the old idea that individual freedom is threatened by the coercive power of the State. When now, individual freedom is threatened by the coercive power of corporations and the moneyed elite. And if they cannot see that and adapt to that, then they should close shop and just call themselves Republicans.
flounder
It might be fun to chart libertarian beliefs/policies with the amount it hurts the working class as the x-axis, and the chance of said policy ever seeing light of day as the y-axis. I would predict that all the terrible crap libertarians push (weaken environmental laws, end labor laws, tax cuts for the rich) would all rate high on the ‘more likely to pass’ scale, while the good things libertarians supposedly believe in, like ending the drug war, or getting rid of eminent domain abuse would rate down in ‘never gonna happen’.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
There are two kinds of freedom: The freedom to do as you wish, and the freedom to do the right thing. Libertarians, like Rand and wealthy Republicans, want the former. Adults want the latter.
ETA: And this would be a good reason to abolish Wall Street, which rewards otherwise functional adults for acting like children.
Linnaeus
@Davis X. Machina:
Yep, there’s a reason they’re sometimes called “propetarians”.
BR
Meanwhile, thanks to our glibertarian overlords who obviously know where money is being wasted in the federal budget, we’re axing:
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/29/energy-information-agency-feels-budget-ax/
That’s the Department of Energy’s EIA, the only organization that compiles data weekly on how much energy is being used, where, by whom, and how much it costs. We’re flying into a storm but decided that the fuel gauge is too expensive so we threw it out.
Oh, and the GOPers also cut all of the government data transparency initiatives:
http://www.shareable.net/blog/can-datagov-be-saved
I’m calling my senators.
Davis X. Machina
@BR: It’s data, generally, and in its most used and accessible form, it’s under the greatest threat.
Save the US Statistical Abstract.
MikeJ
@Cheap Jim: This was my guess. Libertarians are just people with enough sense to be embarrassed about being Republicans. They don’t actually mean any of what they say.
Marmot
Oooh I want in.
Let me get this straight. This dude lists a few class interests without mentioning libertarians’ opposition to taxes — particularly progressive taxes — and social support programs. It’s a variation on the false dilemma logical fallacy. Oh, and it’s a big fat lie of omission.
Then he tries to avoid getting labeled a big fat liar by saying these three “class interests” sit “among others.”
Damn liars. They vote Republican because they’re Republicans.
BR
@Davis X. Machina:
Wow. I never knew about the statistical abstract, but it’s awesome. So much data on so many things.
Yeah, we need to get some senator to champion all of these things: the DOE EIA, Data.gov, the statistical abstract, etc. Because they together give us a picture of what’s going on in the country, and they cost so little to produce.
Suffern ACE
@BR: Good lord. I use USASpending.gov quite often for my job and had no idea it would be going away. Also use the EIA data quite a bit. Well, i guess I could just gather all that stuff myself. I’d only need to make a few thousand phone calls a month to get it.
A Farmer
Slightly off-topic, but the local city council won’t rename a street for a local black activist. It took them two months, but they came up with some brilliant excuses for not doing it. Here’s the story.
A Farmer
Oops, I probably should have posted that in the last thread.
BR
@Suffern ACE:
I read that one GOPer congressman suggested that we “rely upon industry” to get the data the EIA collects. Yeah, that’ll work.
Marmot
@BR: Energy-use statistics?? Why, they’re right up there with “something called volcano monitoring”! What frivolous government spending!
[/Jindal]
John Cole
Basically, it seems many of you are saying that a lot of libertarians are Republicans who don’t want to be associated with idiots like Jim Hoft and who think religious nuts are icky.
Omnes Omnibus
@John Cole: Yeah, I think that is it in a nutshell.
Mark S.
Wow, libertarians also oppose slavery and do not think there should be a property requirement in voting. They’re practically communists!
@Marmot:
Exactly. Follow any libertarian plan (their tax plans, getting rid of SS and Medicare) and imagine what it would do to inequality. It’s a simple fact that completely unregulated capitalism concentrates wealth at the very top. I don’t know if they are too stupid to realize that, or they think that’s ideal. That’s why the Kochs support Reason magazine.
MikeJ
@Mark S.:
Citation needed. I don’t believe it.
Omnes Omnibus
@Mark S.: I know a self-described libertarian who is in favor of property ownership as a precondition for voting.
jimmiraybob
@RossInDetroit:
Unless you have created the wealth to own said gutter or to afford such an endeavor as to personally design and direct the construction of said gutter and/or made prior arrangements with the rightful owner of said gutter and have made the appropriate monetary restitution, you would be a moocher illicitly looting somebody else’s property.
Therefore, in such instance as you describe,it would be most prudent to exercise your approved minimal-allotted liberty by crawling into a hole in the earth to die. Unless, of course, said hole in the earth is the property of a righteous and lawful producer and you have not made the appropriate restitutive arrangements.
Mark S.
@John Cole:
They’d still rather be associated with Jim Hoft than Michael Moore.
danimal
@John Cole: There’s considerable overlap on the Venn Diagram containing right-wing religious nuts and libertarians.
It’s kind of hard to reconcile Ayn Rand and Jerry Falwell, but they do.
Cheap Jim
@John Cole: They could also just like the supposed cachet of belonging to a small group as opposed to a larger one. These would be the types who use the word “sheeple”.
General Stuck
They are worse than most republicans, imho. At least the goopers acknowledge the existence of the poor, they don’t care about them, but they make hollow efforts to look like they care. Libertarians don’t even bother with commenting on the certainty of a top tier component of a free market based economy. And that is there are going to be winners and losers. A feature not a bug. LoOgists just pretend they don’t exist, or only mention them in passing. Or, it seems to me.
georgia pig
@Linnaeus: I have little or no use for libertarians complaining about becoming republicans, as a more accurate description is that Republicans have become this type of “libertarian,” the one that always values capital over labor or anything else, including individual freedom of action. Citizens United is evidence of this evolution, i.e., there should be no abridgement of the right of money to speak. Republicans used to be conservatives, which valued certain institutions above money per se. This is no longer the case. Instead of bemoaning becoming Republicans, self-identified libertarians should take a long, hard look at themselves. Have you noticed that a lot of the “converted” republicans you see on liberal blogs are really libertarian republicans that discovered the limitations of their cramped notions of “liberty”?
Davis X. Machina
This guy was a libertarian, too, and a radical one.
I don’t think he’d get let into the tree-house today.
RossInDetroit
Libertarian is an easy escape for those who don’t want to deal with the messy realities of society and politics.
Sort of like sitting in your bedroom all weekend and planning what would happen if Vulcans married Romulans instead of doing homework. Theoretical wankery to keep the mind off the confusing real world.
BrianM
I make a habit of using the term “right-libertarian” or, sometimes, “propertarian”. There has been a left-libertarianism for a long, long time, and its adherents don’t have to make excuses for why, strangely, there’s only energy behind the oligarchy-supporting parts of their programme. So I don’t think right-libertarians should get to think of themselves as somehow the owners of a concern for individual liberty. Fucking takers.
(Not that left-libertarianism is practical, mind you, which is why I’m a liberal.)
Bruce S
Libertarianism as an across-the-board political philosophy isn’t much different from Marxism with a capital “M” and an “…ism” in that it’s essentially faith-based, despite an elaborate construction of “pure reason” with which adherents can talk you to death even as they can’t actually convince you of anything. I have a libertarian brother-in-law who I’ve been having the same conversation with for forty years and nothing makes a dent, not over time and no matter what actually is happening in the real world. I have changed a lot of my ideas about what works and what doesn’t and how economics should be linked to observable outcomes rather than abstract theories, but these folks are essentially Jehovah’s Witnesses confident of immutable truths.
I’m sure there are some sensible folk who identify as “libertarian” in some fundamental albeit heavily mediated sense – just as there are a handful of sensible people who claim “marxism” as their inspiration (the late Michael Harrington comes first to mind) – but by and large, as practiced by the crowd these are doctrinal ideologies that tell you more about the folks purveying them than they do about anything empirically verifiable.
Mark S.
@General Stuck:
Libertarians don’t think the Ryan plan goes far enough. They would completely end Medicare and Social Security. They are all too privileged (and generally young) to have any appreciation of how important those programs are.
They are also very male. They are pretty blase about proposals to end abortion. These champions of Freedom don’t get too worked up about forced pregnancy, because, well, something to do with them all being male.
Suffern ACE
@BR: Yep. The data will just collect and summarize itself.
Parallel 5ths (Jewish Steel)
@RossInDetroit:
–Vulcan philosopher Surak
I see the potential for inter-planetary conflict between the Reasonoids and the Vulcans.
BR
@Suffern ACE:
And we know industry is fair and unbiased and does what’s right. Inherently. It’s the way God made capitalism.
Jonny Scrum-half
I agree that a lot of people who self-identify as libertarian are immature and come across as pricks. I also agree that the Republican party likes to cloak itself in “libertarianism” to cover for the fact that there’s no real ideology behind the party. But the level of anger here that is directed toward the idea of libertarianism — as opposed to the idiots who worship Ayn Rand — consistently surprises me.
I think that it’s partially true to say that corporations are the problem today. It’s only partially true because (a) it’s not just corporations, but everyone with lots of money, and (b) it’s not simply the corporations themselves, but the fact that they (and others with money) can co-opt the government to get it to do what they want, and to shield them from consequences when things go wrong. That’s going to be a problem whenever government is powerful, because rich human beings (and corporations) will use their money to purchase influence over a powerful government.
Libertarianism at least offers somewhat of a response to that government-corporate alliance, by trying to reduce the power of the government. Regulations aren’t the answer, because the powerful will make sure that the regulations are written or enforced in their favor. Voting rights won’t work, either, because the powerful use their money to influence how people vote (like, for example, Fox News, where millions are misled every day into voting against their interests).
gnomedad
@Luthe:
This is the bottom line for me. I actually like some aspects of libertarian thought. But you never see libertarians support a Democrat over a Republican for libertarian reasons. So, essentially, I think they’re full of shit.
GeorgeSalt
My exposure to libertarianism has been limited mostly to the Ron Paul/Lew Rockwell wing.
I became suspicious of libertarianism when I noticed how chummy most libertarians were with neoconfederates. That’s not to say that all libertarians are neoconfederates, but there does seem to be a lot of sympathy for the neoconfederate world view among Ron Paul/Lew Rockwell libertarians.
Personally, I can’t think of a system more antithetical to liberty than that of the antebellum South.
Omnes Omnibus
@Jonny Scrum-half: If we simply reduce the power of government and leave corporations unchecked, corporations will control everything. Government offers the possibility of a check on corporate power and can be answerable to the people. To me, therefore, ensuring that government is answerable to the people and that it acts as a counter to corporate power should be the goal of political action. Libertarians appear to ignore the threat of corporate power and focus solely on the threat of potentially overweening governmental power. In my view, most are Republicans who are embarrassed to admit it, and those who are not, while well meaning, are working against the interests of most of the country.
IM
@Jonny Scrum-half:
That is only an answer, if we believe in assumption that regulation never works. Furthermore the influence of the rich on the smaller government of the 19th century was if anything much stronger.
The Gilded Age has shown us libertarian ideas on the state in action and I don’t think the results were that good.
Mandramas
Define libertarian is easy. Define republican to me. This is imposible since Republicans are an affiliation, not a philosophy.
Libertarian and Republicans are no competing beliefs, you can be Libertarian and Republican easily.
PeakVT
@dr. bloor: Loogers. Loogies are the posts.
Brian S
@IM:
Well, they were good for you if you were lucky and/or ruthless to steal every penny you saw. If you weren’t one of the handful to be lucky enough to rise, or you weren’t one of those lucky enough to be born to wealth, then it sucked. So yeah, it sucked for most people.
Yutsano
@John Cole: I’m disappointed. I expected at least three full-throttle rants about how you are misrepresenting the libertarian position again and you’re just a poopyface for using their own words against them. We mus not be cross-posted at LoOG yet.
IM
@Brian S:
What is good for Andrew Carnegie is good for America!
MikeJ
@Mandramas:
I’d define them identically.
“I got mine. Fuck you.”
Fred
Delete everything except “I WAS a Republican”. Funny but I seem to be reading a lot of things from this mythical “WAS” mindset that still sounds a HELL of a lot like Rethug think to me.
There are 2 things I do not trust.
1) Republicans or “WAS” Republicans.
2) Things that bleed for 5-7 days and don’t die.
Villago Delenda Est
It boils down to this:
Libertarians are for “liberty” pretty much in the same sense that National Soshulists were for “soshulism”.
It’s a marketing slogan. Created with deliberate intent to deceive.
WereBear (itouch)
now that’s just phoning it in!
Also, too, why doesn’t the mobile version come up with a reply button any more? Or a link? I miss that.
Omnes Omnibus
@Fred: So what you are saying is 1) that you don’t believe people are able to change their minds and people are not capable of redemption and 2) that you are a raging misogynist. Right?
IM
@Omnes Omnibus:
“Things”? I really hope -because of my belief in humanity – that there is a different interpretation.
Omnes Omnibus
@IM: No, unfortunately, I have heard the “joke” before.
IM
The more you know…
the darker my view of my gender.
Mark S.
@Fred:
Jesus, Fred, you’re creepier than Brick Oven Bill used to be.
Not much smarter, either.
Fred
@Omnes Omnibus: Let me make it perfectly clear what I am saying. John Cole, with all his Obama concern trolling and Libertarian curious politisexual tendencies still sounds a hell of a lot like a typical old white male reagan era republican to me minus the neocon streak.
Regarding the second thing I do not trust. I guess you are not familiar with the infamous quote or it simply went right over your head.
Omnes Omnibus
@Fred: I disagree. Further, WTF is up with bleeding comment? Hard to be seen as a liberal purist with what I can only interpret as horribly misogynistic comment like that out there flapping in the wind.
Yutsano
@Fred: Apparently:
@Omnes Omnibus:
is an ambiguous statement to you. But keep digging that hole.
Fred
@Mark S.: So calling out a “WAS” Republican who pretends to be a progressive now is “creepy”. Got it. Thanks for setting me straight on that!
Sigh…..
Fred
@Omnes Omnibus: Let me help you help yourself!
http://www.hark.com/clips/fgvrwpkssb-bleeds-for-five-days-and-doesnt-die
http://www.zazzle.ca/dont_trust_anything_that_bleeds_for_5_days_and_tshirt-235983148336199273
Omnes Omnibus
@Fred: Good fucking god. I have been in enough locker rooms as a middle and high school student to be familiar with the joke.
Fred
@Omnes Omnibus: lol….FAIL! What a gimp!
Yutsano
@Fred: Note to self: Fred is a misogynist asshole. I’ll be sure to let the ladies know.
@Omnes Omnibus: You’re entering debate with rock territory. I wouldn’t be much of an Internet friend if I didn’t warn you of that.
licensed to kill time
Well, Fred, one might as well say they don’t trust anything that repeatedly loses bodily fluids in an uncontrolled explosion from a dangling appendage and doesn’t die.
Har de har har.
Mark S.
@Fred:
No, that wasn’t the part I found creepy. I did find that stupid though. I WAS a Republican. People do change their minds, and if you want to limit your political movement to only people who came out of the womb liberal, you’re going to have a pretty small movement.
Boots Day
The cute thing about this is that the people who are cutting all these types of government-monitoring programs are the same people who think we can make a big dent in the deficit by eliminating “waste, fraud and abuse.” I wonder who they think is going to identify all that “waste, fraud and abuse.”
Just Some Fuckhead
Fucking faux libertarians, more concerned about their purity ponies than the steady backwards incrementalism provided by the Republicans.
driftglass
“I was a Teenage Libertarian II: The Incredible Shrinking Memory” http://bit.ly/kKLcF3
Omnes Omnibus
@Yutsano: Yeah, I am done. One tries to give people a chance, but then…
Omnes Omnibus
@Yutsano: BJ seems to have been hit by a few less than stellar purity trolls lately.
Fred
@Yutsano
@Omnes Omnibus
: You two should get a room with a big enough shower so you can play “oops, I dropped the soap again”
Omnes Omnibus
@Fred: Cool, now a gay joke. Do you want to bring in race so you get the trifecta?
Fred
@@Mark S.: You “WAS a Republican”. I am shocked! Who’d a thunk!
You people are as bad as Racists who don’t think they are racists. You are incapable of self analysis. Incapable of having a sense of humor as well…apparently
Just Some Fuckhead
@Omnes Omnibus: Allan called and said he wants his nanny job back.
Fred
@Omnes Omnibus: At your service. Let me guess. You are a white male over 50. Just a wild guess!
That is the prime Libertarian curious Obama concern troll demographic. Also the inability to understand current popular culture obscure references is kind of a give away
Omnes Omnibus
@Just Some Fuckhead: I thought he was a hall monitor. I am not asking for the guy to be banned. I am just saying he seems to be a misogynistic asshole. Is that a problem for you?
Fred
@Omnes Omnibus: lol….and STILL you do not get the popular culture reference. You MUST be over 50! lol.
Omnes Omnibus
@Fred: You really must be new here if you think I am a “Libertarian curious Obama concern troll.” Christ.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Omnes Omnibus: Me and Mrs. Fuckhead play this little game where she’ll say something and I’ll accuse her of being jealous, for instance, of someone. She’ll immediately respond defensively and I’ll say, “Now you’re being defensive.” Her tone rises a few decibels and she replies forcefully and I’ll then accuse her of having anger issues. At this time, she shuts down completely and I’ll ask her what’s she hiding. Then she grabs a knife and starts chasing me around the house. It’s a total riot. We should film it and post it on Youtube.
Omnes Omnibus
@Just Some Fuckhead: I’d watch it if you posted a link.
@Fred: Recycled old jokes are still old jokes.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Omnes Omnibus:
The best part is we didn’t have to talk about whatever she was trying to talk about.
Omnes Omnibus
@Just Some Fuckhead: I got it. Point taken. Thanks.
Yutsano
@Just Some Fuckhead: Yer a very clever Fuckhead. Sexless, but clever.
@Omnes Omnibus: You know, sometimes it’s better to just stand back and watch them make enough rope to hang themselves with. Plus apparently Fred is a holdover of teh bitter that happened when JC went through Conversion. Either way he’s pretty tiresome. Your energy is definitely better expended in different directions.
Caz
You simply cannot equate republican victories in the last few decades with libertarian victories. There has yet to be a libertarian president (in modern times), which would be drastically different than the littany of repubilcan presidents we’ve had. The main difference is that a libertarian would reduce the SCOPE of government, while republicans increase it.
The fact that libertarians, like everyone else, often vote merely for the lesser of two evils does not mean that libertarians are the same as republicans.
I’m surprised someone as knowledgeable and informed as you doesn’t realize this.
Libertarians and republicans are totally different animals. The fact that they may intersect on some issues here and there does not mean libertarianism is a subset of the republican party.
But if you don’t know, then you don’t know.
Cerberus
2-5 seem designed to make Libertarians look better rather than be what is a regular critique of Libertarian actions. But you know, a conservative group lying, I never.
1 is definitely the big rub. Progressives, liberals, and lefties get constantly thrashed for not supporting Democrats enthusiastically enough and constantly nitpicking what they don’t like and seeking to change it, but they do in fact seek to change what they don’t see as doing enough and genuinely don’t support those who favor the opposite of their goals.
Hell, the flak most progressives get is when they find themselves in a bind between a Democrat who is really bad on an issue that’s really important to them, kinda bad on a bunch of others that are pretty important to them and a Republican who is really bad on every issue known to man and start to agonize over having to vote for the lesser of two evils and end up bitter about it.
But the point is, they don’t ever vote for the party that fucks over their stated beliefs.
And the other critiques that come up tend to really be;
2) Their stated beliefs aren’t. They like to talk a big game about social issues that are widely supported, but they rarely join up with any long-standing liberal organizations who have been working on the problem for decades, rarely support any liberal activists or politicians who have made said social issue their life work and rarely seem to do any fundraisers for the issue in any way. In fact, the support for Social Issue X seems to be more about making Brand Libertarian look good and socially progressive without doing any work.
2b) Their stated beliefs aren’t. Addendum, not only is the talking big a part of it, but for every “good Libertarian” who is genuinely good on 1 (and only 1) social issue, there seems to be at least 5 Libertarians who are absolutely horrible on it. I’ve run into no end of “atheist” “Libertarian” arguments for why homosexuality is a “social sin”. For every drug war is bad type post, there seems to be more “well, the property theft done by drug dealers and junkies justifies it all” sentiments and don’t think it’s escaped people’s notice that the drug war posters rarely talk about the racial motivations of the drug war and don’t actually want it to end, only that it should stop arresting white people ever.
3) Their stated beliefs have horrible effects on society, especially regarding class, race, sex, sexuality, and the economy and society as a whole. Every “Libertarian solution” tends to be great for the hyper-rich and suck for us all and always always fails to provide the benefits it claims. In fact, the reforms in alignment with Libertarian philosophy versus the reforms in alignment with the genuinely noxious religious conservative philosophy are more damaging by far.
4) Their philosophy has been disproven. By economic theorists, by social theorists, by real world evidence, both on the small scale and the national scale. Every place they have destroyed creating their “perfect society” has failed to manifest what they imagine it will. Furthermore, when given that free reign, they have never once “expanded freedom” on the civil and social level, but rather inevitably supported dictatorships, genocide, clamp downs on free speech and the right to protest, and so on.
5) They like to hibernate during genuine civil liberties crises. Reagan and Iran Contra, Bush I and the abuse of the CIA, Bush II and Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Free Speech Zones. Oh, sure, there were the smallest handful, trying to do their spin, but for the most part, the Libertarian response was supportive to absent. And this similarly occurs for anything that has to do with race or sex.
6) Libertarians are the direct descendants of Segregationists. The Libertarians didn’t really kick off their rebranding until Segregation was being toppled and “states rights” and “individual freedom” suddenly became very very important for white Southerners who were totally something new. The historical record shows the evolution of these arguments very clearly which is why
7) Libertarians only ever enter the ring of “rights” when it applies to white men. Even when they can give a damn, they don’t if the subject is non-white people or women. Despite these groups having the most frequent curtails of freedoms, the most discriminatory laws, the most loss of personal freedoms, and the most attempts to directly disenfranchise or otherwise dehumanize them, Libertarians never ever support them directly. Abortion access, campaigns against rape, campaigns against domestic violence, access to institutions, access to legal representation, access to the polls, repeal of discriminatory laws that target them for police harassment and unbalanced enforcement, and much much more. All silent. And worse, most Libertarians like to take the other side, because that’s the side where capital has more freedom or something. However, for anyone who isn’t a white male, the raw misogyny and racism that defines this movement makes it obvious why they are allied with their supposed “enemies”. And of course,
8) Libertarians is the trumped up philosophy of selfish entitlement that wants to feel good about I Got Mine, Fuck You. It’s a post hoc justification for people to wallow in privilege, not change, and feel smugly superior over a position of abject cowardice. The only social issues they’ll stick their neck out are for the issues that affect them directly and they don’t want to pay taxes to support anyone, even though their livings are usually funded by said taxes (government job, social security, disability). For all the other blather, this has been and always will be the root of Libertarianism. They support conservatism, because they have always supported the status quo, the continued dominance of their social group. They just want everything they have now and not have to contribute or see their money go in any way to support people who aren’t them.
We disrespect Libertarians and trash their few bones towards social liberalism, because that is all they deserve. And frankly if they really wanted to support the things that would make their lives better, they could easily. There are organizations decades deep and from their platform of immense wealth and social privilege, they could do a lot of good.
But they’re not. They want even more for themselves and to give nothing in return and will destroy everything because they are too stupid to get why that will never happen.
eemom
@Just Some Fuckhead:
[speechless with horror at the concept of a “Mrs Fuckhead”]
Allan
@Just Some Fuckhead: I look forward to the video where she catches up to you with the knife, and uses it. What fun!
b-psycho
@Omnes Omnibus:
Corporations control everything already — including government. Some “check”, huh?
There’s a reason you’ll never see on one of those talking head shows someone from, say, C4ss. The ones called “libertarians” that get attention are intentionally the most useful to the status quo of rampant state-corporate collusion. Anyone honest about that collusion would realize big business is little more than bagmen for the state.
Just Some Fuckhead
@eemom: Haha. Just because no one will pair-bond with you doesn’t mean the rest of us go without.
eemom
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Au contraire. Eedad would kick your dumb redneck ass eleventy ways to Sunday.
Omnes Omnibus
@Yutsano: I really a done now. If JSF is giving me that kind of advice, I know I am beating my head against a wall.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Omnes Omnibus:
I just want you to be the best you that you can be. If that means showing the worst of me, it’s the cross I bear for you.
Yutsano
@Omnes Omnibus: Granted he did so in a clever and rather amusing way, but I’m glad you’re at least picking up what we’re laying down.
And Aaron Rodgers is not dating a Kardashian. The universe does still have goodness in it.
@Just Some Fuckhead: Heh. I promise you yer always gonna be a Fuckhead to me.
Omnes Omnibus
@Yutsano: I did not know that there were rumors that he was dating a Kardashian. I went to the same middle school as Bruce Jenner. Years later, of course.
AAA Bonds
Good points all, John.
Yutsano
@Omnes Omnibus: There aren’t. That’s how I know the FSM still cares about me. S/he has the good sense to keep Aaron far away from that whole clan.
And apropos of nothing: Sharon Tate used to be my dad’s babysitter.
Omnes Omnibus
@Yutsano:
You win this round.
Chuck Butcher
One thing to note about Caz’ tax ideal, he supports the most regressive tax system there is. It is one that strictly attacks consumption of tangible goods – the boat that entirely consumes lower incomes. Now if stocks, commodity positions, etc were treated as consumption… well now Wall Street would be truly pissed wouldn’t they and that sales tax idea would get dumped in a heartbeat.
Chuck Butcher
The Piggly Wiggly store owner in Smithville, MS is giving away what’s left in his wrecked store – per CNN. Sometimes people will just insist on doing good.
BTW, I lived about 20 miles from Xenia, OH when it was wrecked by what stood as the worst tornado damage for a long time. I spent nearly a year working on the re-building process and there were a lot of similar stories, then.
Yutsano
@Chuck Butcher: It’s all written off as an insurance loss now anyway, so the store owner isn’t losing much. The fact that it will do some folks a lot of good is just gravy.
Sharl
@Chuck Butcher:
I was a senior in high school, living about ten miles from Xenia, when that tornado hit. What a disaster!
lacp
Christ, more about libertarians? Look, let me clarify the whole fucking shtick to you: libertarians are tea party embryos. They have inhaled into every fucking molecule of their beings class privilege; they are most assuredly of a white persuasion (or pathetically want to be so); they have faith without evidence that something called “the free market” (which, while similar, is not the same as capitalism) makes for a just society; they pretend to believe in civil rights (until it’s advantageous not to do so). There are no libertarians, except libertarian socialists (i.e., anarchists). Stop it. Just stop it.
lacp
@Sharl: A former girlfriend of mine was getting high across the street when the supermarket was destroyed.
NobodySpecial
Libertarian split of vote, 2008: 57-40 McCain.
Libertarians, suck it.
Woodrowfan
I thought the article was interesting and so was the discussion, but when it turned to “why aren’t roads paid for by tolls and not taxes?” I gave up. Seriously, anyone who thinks tolls to pay for all roads, not just a few, are fairer than taxes just doesn’t get it.
Woodrowfan
@Sharl:
I was a couple years behind that and lived south of Dayton, but remember it well!!!!
Batocchio
There are some decent, thoughtful libertarians, but the majority skewered at BJ are useful idiots or eager shills for plutocrats. They also tend to be selfish, smug assholes with an extraordinary sense of privilege who overestimate their own merits and underestimate the role of luck. They consistently identify with management and the owners, not the workers. They’re wary of abuse of power by the government, which is healthy, but can be taken to levels of paranoia and a zealot’s absolutism – and they’re commonly blind to (or just don’t care) about abuses of power by corporations or any private entity.
Class analysis can be useful, but substitute “selfishness” and the picture becomes clearer. Generally, libertarians oppose eminent domain because they don’t want to lose their property, they oppose drug laws because many like to smoke pot, and they oppose taxes because they hate paying them. That’s particularly the case for taxes that pay for social services. None of this is to say that all libertarians are bad, or completely lacking in principles, or even that the more douchey ones are wrong about everything. Gadflies serve a useful purpose (although the more realistic are more useful than the crackpots). The true Hayek fans tend to be much sharper and more decent than the Randroids. That said, libertarianism is often impractical, and incapable of solving certain problems (such as Jim Crow laws, where the feds had to step in). Plus, the good parts of libertarianism are already inherent in liberalism, classical and otherwise.
Calling one’s self a “libertarian” can be cover or affectation (as it is for Glenn Reynolds), much in the way the tea partiers aren’t independents (they’re mostly white social conservatives, with serious astroturf funding). For these people, libertarianism isn’t much different from conservatism. What John Kenneth Galbraith said holds equally true for glibertarians: “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”
If some self-described libertarian takes offense at my characterizations, and wants to outline his or her specific philosophy, by all means, link it.
300baud
@Dave:
That is the most insightful thing I’ve read all week.
I think they also miss subliminal and internal threats to freedom. For example, they’re for drug legalization, on the theory that people should be allowed to trade as they please. Which is not a bad base position, but they ignore the way addictions destroy freedom through destroying the capacity for rational choice.
DPirate
@Dave: These are one and the same. At the root, libertarianism does not discriminate between corporate bureaucracy and government. I think the base idea of libertarianism is that corporations should not ever have been allowed to grow like they have, but to outright destroy these large corporations would gut the entire system today. As if corporate power is an out of control tumor in the brain – it needs to be excised, but how do you effect that without removing chunks of the brain or reducing the host to a gibbering idiot?
Paul in KY
@General Stuck: General, I also have more respect for someone who just says “I’m a Republican, agree with their aims, fuck off”.
The Libertarians think the same way (IMO), but won’t man up & admit it.