Libertarianism: The Only Thing Worse Than Being a Republican

Wouldn't it be great to be a billionaire and then fund Libertarians and the Libertarian cause---so you could destroy government, lower your own taxes and so, make and keep yet more money?


Wouldn't that be great?

If Your Pet Were Libertarian

The Dog's Bark

Saw this yesterday and loved it.

That is one brilliant dog.

The Republican, Libertarian Lifeguard

God forbid he's your lifeguard and you need him.

Libertarian vs Socialist

I saw this earlier and loved it. Naturally, there's at least a bit of truth to it or it wouldn't work.

I ask you, which would you prefer?

We all work together vs. "every man--and woman--for themselves"?

What Libertrarianism Really Is

I have had no respect for the people who call themselves "Libertarians" nearly since I first became aware of them. To me, they are people who realized their political party--the Republican Party--was falling a apart and they wanted smaller government so they came up with this idea they'd be edgy and controversial, create a new political party and call themselves this.

But the fact is, as I've said before, the thing with Libertarians is that they can't collectively decide how small this new, functioning government is supposed to be, among other things.

Then, last week, I saw this and it helped clarify further more of the issues I know I have with these people and their very loosely-formed group. Enjoy:

You're Not the Boss of Me! Why Libertarianism Is a Childish Sham

Libertarians believe they're rebels, but they are really political children who scream through tears

Libertarians believe themselves controversial and cool. They're desperate to package themselves as dangerous rebels, but in reality they are champions of conformity. Their irreverence and their opposition to “political correctness” is little more than a fashion accessory, disguising their subservience to—for all their protests against the “political elite”—the real elite.

Ayn Rand is the rebel queen of their icy kingdom, villifying empathy and solidarity. Christopher Hitchens, in typical blunt force fashion, undressed Rand and her libertarian followers, exposing their obsequiousness toward the operational standards of a selfish society: “I have always found it quaint, and rather touching, that there is a movement in the US that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough.”

Libertarians believe they are real rebels, because they’ve politicized the protest of children who scream through tears, “You’re not the boss of me.” The rejection of all rules and regulations, and the belief that everyone should have the ability to do whatever they want, is not rebellion or dissent. It is infantile naïveté.

As much as libertarians boast of having a “political movement” gaining in popularity, “you’re not the boss of me” does not even rise to the most elementary level of politics. Aristotle translated “politics” into meaning “the things concerning the polis,” referring to the city, or in other words, the community. Confucius connected politics with ethics, and his ethics are attached to communal service with a moral system based on empathy. A political program, like that from the right, that eliminates empathy, and denies the collective, is anti-political.

Opposition to any conception of the public interest and common good, and the consistent rejection of any opportunity to organize communities in the interest of solidarity, is not only a vicious form of anti-politics, it is affirmation of America’s most dominant and harmful dogmas. In America, selfishness, like blue jeans or a black dress, never goes out of style. It is the style.

I ask you, how do you run a nation of far more than 315 million people with little government? Or very little?

And how small a government is it, when you're done shrinking it? How small DO we go? What do we get out of, completely? Do we have a national highway system? How small do you shrink the military? And believe me, if you know anything of me, I'm all about shrinking our military spending.

Where do you stop with the cuts?  What's left?

I'm left wondering how much of a nation we are, collectively, if we make all those cuts.

Are we together?

Wouldn't Libertarianism mean that if a state wants to secede, you let them? Would that not be consistent with this train of thought? And if it's not consistent, what would be the position taken on such a situation.

As it is, we're becoming less and less the United States of America.

With Libertarianism, I wonder if we would even be the States, let alone United.

Regarding Ferguson: What's with all the silence from the Right Wing?

Yes, it would be nice if all the Right Wingers---the Republicans, the Tea Party, the Libertarians, etc.--would all have already long since spoken up on this.  Not a peep, standing up for the unarmed man, gunned down by the police. In effect, by "government."

Huh.

Go figure.

Here's Libertarianism for you

If you've been following the news lately, you may have, likely have heard the story about the people who've been exposed to and some even killed by, having received medication from what we now hear is a "compound pharmacy":

‘High risk’ drug making is at center of meningitis inquiry

Federal officials are investigating practices at New England Compounding Center in Framingham, a compounding pharmacy that has been linked to an outbreak of fungal meningitis. The outbreak has been blamed in 24 deaths.

Inside its sprawling red brick offices, New England Compounding Center engaged in the most hazardous type of pharmacy drug making. The company bought unsterilized powders and turned them into liquid steroids and other medicine supposedly pristine enough to inject into a patient.

It’s called “high-risk compounding,” and doing this safely, industry specialists say, requires elaborate and expensive manufacturing processes, sensitive tests for sterility and potency, and exacting attention to detail.

At the center of the federal and state investigation into New England Compounding, whose steroids were contaminated with a fungus that led to an outbreak of meningitis that has killed 24 people nationally, is whether the company violated these procedures.

My point?

My point is, this is yet one more example, like the BP oil blowout and spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the 2008 financial collapse that nearly took down the nation's and world's economies, that we need at least some government oversight and--gasp--regulations.

Without government and without that oversight and without regulations the Libertarians and so many Republicans and Right Wingers and "Conservatives" abhor, we--the people--are left exposed to the greed of we-don't-know-who.

No, thanks.

Leave me out, please.

I'll take some regulation, thank you.

Links: http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/healthcare/PA-lacks-patient-protection-against-sterile-compounding-errors.html

http://bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/2012/10/25/framingham-pharmacy-engaged-high-risk-compounding-higher-chance-contamination/BxwAtkfmCg9rW7EsJqv7HM/story.html

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/healthcare/PA-lacks-patient-protection-against-sterile-compounding-errors.html

http://www.npr.org/2012/10/25/163641002/after-meningitis-deaths-a-look-at-drug-safety

On Libertarians

Click on picture for better viewing.

And this would just be the beginning.

Link: http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur

We surely hate government, don't we?

President Obama makes brilliant move

Did you hear the announcement yesterday that President Obama asked Congress for the power to reorganize--and shrink--the federal government, especially as it applies to the Commerce Department? He's "...prodding Congress to give him greater power to merge agencies and promising he would start by collapsing six major economic departments into one." He wants to combine the Trade and Commerce Departments, at minimum. It really is downright brilliant. It hits the Republicans, the Right Wing, the Tea Party and "Conservatives" and even the Libertarians right where they live--or right where they want to live. That's what people don't realize about Democrats and the Left, too. They don't get that actually liberals also want smaller, more effective government. It's just that they (we) do want a safety net, so to speak, for the poorest of us but there's no reason we can't or shouldn't have smaller but more effective government. As I said, it's a brilliant move and it undercuts the very things the Republican candidates for his job say he--President Obama--won't do or isn't capable of. Fantastic. Now, if the Republicans in Congress don't give it to him, they'll look like idiots or hypocrites--or both--and he can use it against them. If they give it to him, he gets credit for shrinking and organizing government better. It's a total win situation for him. Link: http://times247.com/articles/power-grab-obama-wants-authority-to-merge-agencies-at-will

Yahoo! and Yahoo! News have become solidly Right Wing

In the last few months, there have repeatedly been times when I've seen a headline on Yahoo! News that strikes me as patently biased, Right- Wing "reporting". Today is another such day as this is the headline I saw: Ron Paul Is a Dangerous Tin Man Who Has No Heart (link at bottom) Sure, it's commentary and it's even from one of their "contributors" but could they be any more biased? This isn't even reporting. This is just ugly, very-slanted opinion. Later, up poppedd these two headlines, too: . First this one: Ex-Aide: Ron Paul Foreign Policy is 'Sheer Lunacy' And then this one: Fmr staffer: Ron Paul planned ‘No’ vote for Afghanistan invasion, staff threatened mutiny It seems clear Yahoo! really doesn't want Ron Paul even remotely considered as a candidate. Don't get me wrong here, either--I'm no big Ron Paul fan or supporter. I just think there should be responsible reporting and journalism in the country for the benefit of the voting populace. This is just ugliness, opinion, again, and possibly even vitriol. It serves no good purpose. Link: http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-dangerous-tin-man-no-heart-053200808.html

Here's more of that low-regulation Libertarianism for you

A great example of "self-regulation": former Senator Jon Corzine's MF Global, which collapsed. Now? 1.2 billion dollars are missing and unaccounted for. Understandably, people are upset to the point of angry. (see link below). After the BP oil spill and the 2008 financial collapse that still reverberates today, it's difficult to believe people still want "small government" so companies can regulate themselves. No thank you. We've had far too many examples and reminders of how and why that just doesn't work. Links: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/14/us-mfglobal-regulation-idUSTRE7BD1WE20111214; http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/13/us-mfglobal-execs-idUSTRE7BB1XV20111213

The latest thing in jokes

Libertarian jokes. It was inevitable. Q: How many libertarians does it take to change a light bulb? A: None. The free market has chosen darkness and we must not interfere. :) Have a great weekend, y'all.

Quote of the day

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group that believes you can do these things. Among them are.. a few other Texas oil millionaires and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." - President Eisenhower, in a letter, 1954. (I wonder if this still holds true.)

Why Libertarianism will never work

There is an article out last week by John Stossel over at reason.com (that name cracks me up) titled "How libertarianism can fix what's wrong with America." In it, he writes on a new book out by Reason magazine Editor Matt Welch and Reason.tv Editor in Chief Nick Gillespie: The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong With America. Sorry to rain on anyone's parade but this just isn't going to ever happen. Ever. The reason why Libertarianism can't "fix what's wrong with America" is because Libertarians can't decide and agree on--and never will--how small "small government" is supposed to be. Some will say no government at all. Others will say "only this much." Still others will say, "Well, we've got to add this." Get, say, a dozen Libertarians in a room and ask them how much government we should have. They'll never agree. Then, imagine thousands of them, collectively, at, say, a national convention. Fights would soon break out, I feel certain. They can never be a cohesive group because they'll never be able to decide the size of government and what its functions are to be. It'll never happen. Stossel writes "The big change they see stems from independents' refusal to be absorbed by any party." This "refusal to be absorbed" is more an indication of our own national fracturing and splintering, not evidence that we're coming together--or going to--to fix our problems. I say again, the way to "fix America" is to get the wealthy people's and corporation's money out of our government. We have to get them to stop legally buying our representatives and so, our legislation and government. If we can't or don't do that, nothing will change and we are doomed to failure, as a nation. And trust me, usually I'm an optimist. Links: http://reason.com/archives/2011/06/30/a-new-day-in-politics; http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1586489380/reasonmagazineA/

You say you want a revolution?

A friend has a link today on Facebook, showing some grass roots organizations that are doing just that, organizing, but for a June 14th, Flag Day protest in lower Manhattan, among many, many other things, apparently, nationwide, to protest what they see as the state of our union here in the States.  Following is just a little bit of their information:

“We are a decentralized non-violent resistance movement, which seeks to restore the rule of law and fight back against the organized criminal class.

One-tenth of one percent of the population has consolidated wealth in unprecedented fashion and launched an all-out economic war against 99.9% of the population.

We are not affiliated with either wing of the two-party oligarchy. We seek an end to the corrupted two-party system by ending the campaign finance and lobbying racket.

Above all, we aim to break up the global banking cartel centered at the Federal Reserve, International Monetary Fund, Bank of International Settlement and World Bank.

We demand that the primary dealers within the Federal Reserve banking system be broken up and held accountable for rigging markets and destroying the global economy, effective immediately.

As a first sign of good faith, we demand Ben Bernanke step down as Federal Reserve chairman.

Until our demands are met and a rule of law is restored, we will engage in a relentless campaign of non-violent, peaceful, civil disobedience.”

This bring up a few thoughts, at least:

First, it's pretty fascinating that it may be out "Tea-Partying" the Tea Party.  Whereas the original Tea Party of recent creation was to rebel against what they saw happening, if what the site below tells and shows is true, this apparently has a great deal of broad-based support, across many organizations and has many followers and fellow creators in the country.  From the sounds and looks of it, many people are involved and in lots of different ways and with many different purposes.

Second, it's terrific to see that this group--or person, anyway, at least--understands what I've proposed for a long time--along with Molly Ivins, for several years, before she died--and that is, that we need true, stringent, tough and verifiable campaign finance reform.

Saying again, if we don't get corporate and wealth people's money out of our government, little will go the way of the working man and woman, the "little guy", and the middle-class will continue to shrink.

Third, the odd part of this, however, to me, is where they call for the dismantling of the Federal Reserve.  

I've always been extremely "iffy" on that one.

Sure, Representative Ron Paul has called for this for some time and I think that's where it gets the biggest push but I've never been one who particularly saw the evil or wickedness of the Fed.  I just don't get it.  If anything, I've always thought the Fed really does help keep us a bit more "between the lines" of booms and busts.  I see nothing nefarious there.

Anyway, with all this, it looks like fascinating developments.  It will be interesting to see where these groups go with all this disenchantment.

I've said for a long time that we need to take our government back---again, from the corporations and wealthy of the country.

I just hope this is all very orderly, frankly, and that we don't descend into chaos and/or anarchy.

I also wish all the people who are so upset now would have opened their eyes from 2000 to 2008, when George W. Bush was giving away the farm, so to speak, to the wealthy and so few people said anything about it.

These are interesting times.

I just hope they don't get "too interesting".

Links:  http://ampedstatus.org/prepare-for-revolution-the-empire-state-rebellion-begins-on-june-14th/; http://ampedstatus.org/network/groups/a99; 

Action Planning Site: http://www.fss34.com/opesr.html

Social Network Group: http://ampedstatus.org/network/groups/a99/

For further information read: Prepare For Revolution: The Empire State Rebellion Begins on June 14th

Quote of the day, on government for 350 million people

" But to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it." --Henry David Thoreau (with thanks to my friend Dooley, for reminding me of this quote)

Because after all, how do you un a country of 350+ million people with no government?

I mean really.

Liberalism vs Libertarian philosopy

I just took this from a friend's Facebook page, frankly:


"...just swiped this from the comment section over at Truthout:
Genuine freedom includes two components:
1. Freedom to


and


2. Freedom from

Libertarian ideology only recognizes the first component--which is why it's inadequate.

The two often come into conflict.
Take smoking. Smokers' freedom to smoke in public conflicts with non-smokers' freedom from harm (cancer, etc.). Society initially supported the former but as evidence of harm mounted, shifted to the latter.
Take the environment. A company's freedom to pollute conflicts with citizens' freedom from harm (in various forms, including cancer and global warming). We've addressed this issue only in an adequate way to date.
The free market alone can only support "freedom to." It takes government regulation to support "freedom from."


That's why the liberal theory of freedom is much more powerful and ultimately beneficial than the libertarian theory of freedom.
Libertarianism = the greatest good for the rich & well-connected


Liberalism = the greatest good for the greatest number"

Food for thought, for sure.

Have a great day, y'all, and enjoy that terrific, continuing stretch of wonderful weather.

Quote of the day--from a Conservative Libertarian

Either you believe in religious freedom or you don't. Either you believe in the Constitution (hello Tea Party people) or you don't. It makes you look stupid to have situational ethics on it. How can someone with a straight face call for stricter interpretation of the Constitution and then say these Americans don't have a right to build religious facilities where other Americans are allowed to build their religious facilities? It might not make me popular.....but I think Muslims have a right to follow a false god and a false doctrine if they want. In short, they have the right to be wrong. --JoCoEveryman (Johnson County, as in Kansas, as in part of the Kansas City metropolitan area, for those who don't know). Taken from his "Life in SoJoCo" blog Link here: http://sojoco.blogspot.com/2010/08/shocker.html