Libertarian In Name Only : Socratic Rhythm Method

by Matt Barr

Libertarian In Name Only

I figure I must be a LINO. You know that RINOs are either Republicans in Name Only, or, if you prefer, Republicans / Independents Not Overdosed (on the Party Kool Aid) (wouldn't that be RINOOTPKA?). Only LINO doesn't work like RINO and DINO do. The pun's not there, and LINO just isn't any fun to say. Plus, unless you have drunk the libertarian Kool-Aid (spiked, no doubt), who would want to be called one?

So I'm declaring myself a LWOP (ELL-wahp) -- Libertarian Without the Party. You know, without the Libertarian Party, which tends not to, let's say, frame the national debate that much; or, without the PARTY!!!!, the raison d'etre for libertarianism among the people most flummoxed at the LP's inability to win hearts and minds.

You too might be a LWOP if:

You think people should behave themselves, but not that there ought to be a law that makes them.

You consider government to be a corrupting influence on religion, animating your desire for a separation of state and church.

You're perfectly capable of teaching your kids right and wrong no matter what they learn at school.

You believe political correctness is what people who can't treat others with kindness and respect for their dignity invented to paper over their own faults; you don't share them.

You think a dollar spent by government on stop signs and air forces is generally a dollar well spent, but a dollar spent by government on almost anything else costs about $7.50 in waste, inefficiency and opportunity cost.

And that includes a dollar spent on The Children, hurricane relief, spaceships to the moon and AIDS research.

You wish people who talked about the government not being able to "afford" a tax cut and who wring their hands over deficits because it doesn't occur to anybody that you can take in less if you spend less would go pound sand.

You have no use or time for people who don't think, just mimic what they hear or read other people say, whether you independently agree with it or not.

You believe that, indeed, there are dozens, hundreds even, of rights retained by the people that are unenumerated in the Constitution, but that a remote government with a national constituency hundreds of millions strong has no competency, no business and no power to define, disparage or protect those rights.

You know that a prosperous society will remain free if allowed to, and not suffocated by self-perpetuating bureaucrats, asinine regulations and private sector busybodies.

You know America has faults, just as you know your wife or mother has faults, but there is about a zero percent chance of your opening the CIA World Fact Book and randomly pointing to a place you'd rather live.

You believe we did it, broke the ribbon, grabbed the brass ring, found the grail, are the most exemplary and finest nation on the face of the earth, and we should learn lessons from other cultures, societies and systems, bygone and contemporary, because we can, not because we must.

And if we have to rely on government instead of ourselves to keep us that way, it's all been for nothing.

Trackback Pings

Blogs linking Libertarian In Name Only:

» Ell-Wop's from Eric's Grumbles Before The Grave
I ran across an entry by New World Man that mirrors much of what I think about being libertarian. In it, Matt talks about being a Libertarian in Name Only (a LINO), much like the RINO's are Republicans in Name... [Read More]

Tracked on October 29, 2005 12:24 PM

Comments

bujeeboo posted:

Hey, they had a Cato Dude on The News Hour talking about Posse Comitatus playing the "Token Liberal" role in the media's unrelenting quest to "balance" every fooking issue. I would say that is some cache, at least. The other dude was from the Center for American Progress.

Anyway, my only beef with your post is with this part:
"You think a dollar spent by government on stop signs and air forces is generally a dollar well spent, but a dollar spent by government on almost anything else costs about $7.50 in waste, inefficiency and opportunity cost."

Specifically, where do LWAPs fall on the matter when the dollars wasted are ON air forces? There are $80 billion dollars missing in private contract money on the war in Iraq. Where are the hold-your-nose-and-vote-Republican crowd on the cronyism and wastage on these issues?

I think that Libertarians suffer from a similar phenomenon that Democrats suffer from: defining your voting habits by at least not voting for _______ [Liberals/Bush] - Insert your pariah here. You are missing your party much as I am missing mine right now because we are busy defining ourselves by what we are not.

Independently Yours,
-Bujee

September 28, 2005 1:34 PM

MJB posted:

Speaking for all the LWOPs I personally know, the difference would be that if there's fraud and waste in spending on F-16s, I don't think the government should get out of the business of commissioning and operating fighter jets because the fraud and waste demonstrates that it has no competency to provide national defense better than the private sector could.

I don't have a party to miss, honestly. Beyond that, I don't really know specifically which part of this is my being against A, B or C. PC, maybe.

September 28, 2005 4:47 PM

bujeeboo posted:

Well, taking the analogy to the current group in power: I would contend that this government isn't even IN the defense business. Their crony corporate friends are. If the Gov't is going to open the coffers and shower $81 billion dollars in unaccounted-for defense spending, and not provide the investigative oversight by a Republican-led Congress, then by God, the GOP truly suck at it, by anyone's definition.

I think that's where I get stuck when it comes to Libertarians. They don't like alot of stuff on principal, but it seldom relates to the current occupants of the White House et al or takes a stand against it. But it sure relates to the world if liberals ran it. I think that part we all get. But it's not the current reality of who is in power and thus solves nothing in the real world for real problems that never get solved because it focuses on the wrong source of the problem. Does that make sense? I'm rushing a bit. Sorry.

September 28, 2005 6:51 PM

MJB posted:

Most libertarians, I think I'm safe saying, abhor George W. Bush nearly as much as Democrats do. "Nearly" because it's an abhorrence on principle, not a visceral thing.

Libertarians are also great at not getting to the source of problems and solving anything!

September 28, 2005 8:23 PM

Post a comment

Due to comment spam, please enter the five-digit security code along with your comment. I'm sorry for the hassle.



real quick liberty law blogs music movies sports supreme court constitution home