Category ►►► Libertinarians
July 15, 2012
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Lootery:
a Followup to Korso's Joss the Political Slayer
Bouncing off Korso's previous post, I believe he has run head-on into the vile phenomenon of coöption, where the Left jacks up a perfectly good term, such as libertarianism, and runs a brand new (and completely opposing) definition underneath.
It's a funny thing about "libertarians." Actual libertarianism is the closest approach I make to a recognized political ideology; it is based upon the philosophy of individual liberty coupled with specific accountability for one's own actions; "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." Libertarianism contemplates a minimalist State ("minarchy") that protects only natural rights, adjudicates disputes, organizes those few operations that must be handled collectively but are too big to be handled by voluntary association (i.e., national defense, building vital infrastructure that nearly all souls require, and enforcing free trade among the several states); otherwise, it gets out of the dang way, and lets individualism, Capitalism, and minding one's own business work its magic. (Those who reject even a minarchy are more properly called anarchists than libertarians.)
There is of course vigorous argument over what cannot be handled by voluntary association but requires collectivism instead, how specific disputes should be decided, and indeed, what constitutes "natural rights" in the first place. True libertarians are hotly divided on the subject of abortion, for example, which hinges on the question of when a developing zygote/embryo/foetus becomes a "person." But a true libertarian at the least recognizes the axioms of liberty and the rules of inference of logical argument: All libertarians should acknowledge not only their own liberty but everybody else's, including the liberty of their bitter enemies; and all libertarians should argue from consistent premises and arrive at valid (and recognizably liberty-based) conclusions.
Real libertarians are Capitalists, individualists (and familialists), self-reliant, with a strong sense of voluntary association to stave off State collectivism: If you can organize your armed neighbors to help you run off the muggers in your neighborhood, you don't need to call the police to handle the problem.
Yet these days, I can barely recognize most folks who call themselves libertarians. A staggering percentage of so-called libertarians are in fact leftist shills who occasionally deviate from the party line... but only when rules of political correctness conflict with their somatic, sybaritic self-pleasure.
Long ago (pre-Big Lizards), I coined the term "libertinarians" to describe these false-flag phonies: They support high taxes (!) to pay for free dope, limitless welfare (!!) so they needn't work, and an ever-expanding government whose function is to prohibit whatever they dislike and mandate free availability of whatever goods or services they enjoy. And libertinarians invariably vote Democratic -- demanding all the while that the jackbooted fascists in the GOP be silenced by the government.
Hugh Hefner and Bill Maher are disgustingly perfect examples, festooning themselves with hedonistic "political incorrectness," while simultaneously drinking the socialist Flavor-Aid about everything that matters beyond their own creature comforts. They are emblematic of (rough guess) two-thirds of those who label themselves libertarian. Sadly, it appears that Joss Whedon, of Buffy the Vampire Slayer fame, joins them.
They've never read a single book of libertarian theory, have never heard of Mises, Hayek, or Friedman, and do not believe in extending their own license to their neighbors (unless their neighbors are their sychophantic toadies). Libertinarians are perpetual posturing adolescents, pretending to an independence that includes the "freedom" to run riot, but in reality clinging to the teen-fantasy of an over-indulgent Mommy-State that will indemnify them from the natural consequences of their libertine excess.
Libertinarians despise voluntary associations -- churches and synogogues, service organizations, neighborhood watches, free and voluntary coöps, private charity, commercial insurance companies, and business councils; but they adore all involuntary collectives -- forced unionization, government-run medical care, welfare, GSEs, State-enforced monopolies -- so long as they themselves aren't compelled to join or contribute. (Libertinarians do, however, demand that they receive all benefits of such forced collectivism anyway. They clearly have never perused the Little Red Hen.)
They march in liberal lockstep, only breaking ideological ranks when discussion turns to drowning their individual identity in drug-induced mob manias, cold-heartedly exploiting vulnerable females (libertinarians are almost exclusively male), and of course, keeping their own money -- while looting yours.
On those "rights," they are adamant; but only for themselves. The rest of us, whatever we may call ourselves, may go hang.
August 31, 2010
Were-Liberals of Alaska
I've had a hypothesis for many years. Most libertarians are actually were-liberals: Every two years come November, they lurch to the left in the voting booth.
2010 is clearly no exception... for the Libertarian nominee in the Alaska U.S. Senate race, David Haase, has offered to "step down" and allow Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK, 68%) to take his place on the ballot as the "Libertarian" candidate -- if she will verbally embrace his plan to abolish the income tax and a couple of other things, which Haase dubs, with no hint that he understands the irony, the "People's Bailout":
Although Libertarian Party officials were dismissing the idea, Senate nominee David Haase said Monday that he would give Mrs. Murkowski his line on the ballot if the Republican senator would hoist his banner on behalf of nationalizing the Federal Reserve System, paying off the entire national debt with non-interest-bearing notes and abolishing the individual income tax.
"Would I step down for her? The right question is, first, will she take up my 'People's Bailout'?" Mr. Haase said, referring to a policy paper he has been circulating on how "to return to the banking system our Founders gave us."
"If she came out for my 'Peoples Bailout' plan, it would influence me a lot because the mission is more important than becoming a U.S. senator," he added.
I'm sure it is; but his comments beg the question, what exactly is the mission?
- First, there is virtually no possibility that Murkowski could possibly be elected running as a Libertarian in a race with both a Democrat and a Republican; she would come in a distant and humiliating third.
- Second, Haase must know that even if Murkowski mouthed the words, and even were she elected, she would never seriously push such a plan; she is not now and never has been a radical anti-income-taxer.
- Too, even if she did, there is no possibility it would pass either House or Senate.
- Fourth, even if it did pass by some deus ex machina, we would end up with a grotesque value-added tax (VAT) and a national sales tax... yet we would still have the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: You just can't get two-thirds of each chamber of Congress plus thirty-eight states to ratify a repeal of the amendment that allows an income tax. All of which means that in a couple of years time, we would have a VAT, a national sales tax, plus a brand new income tax as well!
Since I doubt that David "Schleppenwolf" Haase is an utter fool, he knows that getting Lisa Murkowski to "come out" for his "People's Bailout" would do nothing at all to implement it. Ergo, he has an ulterior motive, which I believe is threefold; in order of urgency:
- Gaining notoriety for himself;
- Positioning the Libertarian Party to receive a big batch of fundraising;
- Splitting the Republican vote between Murkowski and "Average" Joe Miller, thus ensuring that Democratic nominee Scott McAdams wins the election.
When it comes down to it, most libertarians (and probably nearly all capital-L Libertarians) only pay lip service to free markets; in reality, they tend to be moochers who never grow up, live with their parents until they become fifty year old "orphans," and never really get past the "oral stage" of psychological development; they smoke too much tea and eat themselves into planetoid obesity.
They are really not libertarians at all; they are libertines. Their signature issue is far more likely to be legalizing marijuana than allowing us to succeed or fail by our own efforts (i.e., liberty). In fact, when the parental units finally kick the b., many self-described libertarians find a way to live on welfare! They substitute the Invisible Teat of Big Government for the nipple they never really let out of their mouths while Mommy still lived.
In the last election, vast numbers of these "libertinarians" voted for Barack H. Obama -- then concocted some Rube-Goldbergian verbal machination to explain why Obama was the most "free market" candidate running.
There are of course mature, adult libertarians worthy of the name -- think William F. Buckley, jr. or Milton and Rose Friedman -- who make their own way, support themselves and their families, interact in a mature way with real markets, and are less interested in oral fixations like dope smoking than they are in actual liberty issues. However, adult libertarians tend to vote Republican these days.
But back to the Final Frontier, the pending election of a Tea Partier as United States senator from Alaska.
Mind, this is the same election to which the National Republican Senatorial Committee sent its chief counsel, Sean Cairncross, to counsel Lisa Murkowski how to discover or manufacture sufficient votes in the absentee ballots to reverse her primary loss -- presumably by challenging as many Miller votes as possible, especially those from members of the military. Now the putative "Libertarian" candidate schemes to nullify the Republican vote by cleaving it in twain, hoping to install the minority Democrat in that seat. Democrats and establishment Republicans have merged, and their joint rebel yell is, "Anybody but 'Average' Joe Miller!"
- Miller will win the Republican nomination.
- Murkowski will not run as the Libertarian, nor the Independent (à la Charlie Crist in Florida), nor the write-in joke candidate.
- Scott McAdams will remain the Democratic nominee.
- Joe Miller will win the general election by at least ten points.
Remember Hugh Hewitt's aphorism: "If it's not close, they can't cheat." The Miller-Murkowski battle is close, but not close enough. And the subsequent general election won't even be close enough to tempt.
Cross-posted on Hot Air's rogues' gallery...
© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved