American Politics Journal

What's a Libertarian To Do?
In the face of a corporate-sponsored dictatorship, they are at a loss
by Bryan Zepp Jamieson

Nov. 26, 2001-- Mt. Shasta, CA (APJP) -- Libertarians are a lot like liberals when it comes to social issues. Although libertarians like to pretend that liberals aren't for freedom of speech, the right to own property, freedom of religion and freedom from oppressive government, the fact is we share all those traits in common.

Where the trouble begins is that libertarians believe that government, and government only, is the crux of power in a society, and that it can be abused. That government is a crux of power and can be abused is beyond question, of course, but where the libertarian philosophy falls apart is in the faith that should government be severely curtailed or even removed altogether, no other faction will move in to replace it, and society will consist of virtuous anarchists, each content to leave the others all alone.

This assumes that no corporation will ever try to stick it to their consumers or the competition, and that if one was foolish enough to try, an aroused public would reject them and their dishonest way (interestingly, these same libertarians get very huffy and indignant if anyone should suggest a boycott of any sort now -- especially if it's Microsoft).

They also like to pretend that the religious community doesn't have a totalitarian streak in them that would love to impose their beliefs on the entire culture. As with curbs on corporate power, they just smile, flutter their hands, and assure one and all that if people just say no, then they will go away. It's kinda quaint, really.

Of course, and as I've mentioned many times, these very entities spotted the fatal flaw in libertarian reasoning and with glad cries, adopted the jargon as their own. Thus you have people running about saying that poor, weak, powerless, freedom-loving little entities like Enron and the Catholic church deserve all the rights and privileges afforded everyone else, and that in the name of freedom, they should be allowed to take on regular citizens, one-to-one, in a fair fight.

Libertarians generally supported Republicans because Republicans said they were for smaller government. Republicans meant smaller government for big businesses only, and felt the role of government was to help business in any way possible. For the people, well...

The Republicans have this contingent of religiously insane, led by such rabid sociopaths as Sun Myung Moon, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell. These "faith-based" leaders gave the GOP the not-inconsiderable support of their followers in return for the opportunity to desecularize America. Libertarians had to squeeze their eyes tightly shut and pretend these religious totalitarians weren't a growing and ever more influential part of party politics dating back to 1975, and ignore such things as the school prayer amendment and the various efforts at eliminating the right to choose.

It would seem difficult for a group of staunch civil rights advocates to ignore the fact that their allies are talking about such things as disenfranchising non-believers or requiring proof of devoutness before running for office, but the libertarians managed.

Now, of course, we have an illegitimate and authoritarian regime running the country, and there is a full-scale assault on civil constitutional rights going on across the board. And the libertarians have finally begun admitting that the new world order promised by the resurrection of the Bush regime hasn't quite worked out the way they had hoped for. Instead of a Ferengii paradise, they are getting Germany, circa 1934.

On Usenet, a lot of the libertarians have pretty much dropped from sight, at least in the areas infested by us liberal types. The ones remaining tend to be a more psychotic branch of the family known as "anarcho-capitalists." They believe that the ONLY role of government is national defense, and get very annoyed if you ask them why they think all those weapons pointing OUT from American couldn't be turned to point IN. They tend to believe that government has no business telling anyone how to do anything at all.

I came across one exchange where a liberal was taunting an anarcho-capitalist about some of the draconian rules pushed by Osama bin Ashcroft and Putsch, and the replies got pretty funny.

The anarcho-capitalist in question was a rarity–a self-professed female. Nobody was quite sure that such existed. Anarcho-capitalists tend to be over-privileged technoturds with too much testosterone and not enough socialization, and come with the cold imperious arrogance that makes it easy to see the death camps at the other side of their dystopia. This supposed female was the same, using the same combination of bluster and disdain to support her points.

She argued that Ashcroft and Putsch indeed, had turned out to be awful, but then claimed it was all the fault of liberals. Liberals, she claimed, made it possible by supporting the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill.

I remember that quite well. I opposed it. So did most liberals that I know. The Democrats, characteristically, split down the middle on it, with liberals opposing it and moderates and right wingers supporting it. As I recall, it passed the House with support from some 40 Democrats.

Liberals on the net opposed it, and I remember that quite clearly, too. Some libertarians did, but the anarcho-capitalists weren't even in the fight. They were off, spinning bizarre conspiracy theories about Vince Foster and Waco, and never even showed up for the Crime bill discussion.

One thing that fogs the picture is that there's a lot of conservatives who like to call themselves libertarian. The old joke goes that a net libertarian is just a Republican who smokes grass, and that is often the case. However, they too have a distinguishing approach to the crime bill; they opposed it after it became law, because Clinton signed it. They were hors de combat prior to that, as well.

So the wackier libertarians are still so far out to lunch they've lost the picnic basket, trying to blame the one group that actually did oppose Clinton's reining in of civil rights. They still believe that liberals are worse than Republicans because we understand that the role of government is to protect the interests of the people against other power groups, such as multinational corporations and the churches.

Still, among "mainstream" (for lack of a better word) libertarians there are signs of an awakening. The leading voice of libertarianism in America, the Cato Institute, came out with a stinging rebuke of Putsch's energy plan today, calling it "not just nonsense, but nonsense on stilts." For the Cato Institute to actually oppose a plan that, on the face of it, deregulates the oil and coal industries, is an amazing turn about. Presumably, the people at the institute saw what happened to California in the early days of the Republican takeover this past winter, and realized that freeing business to be business might actually hurt the rights of people. We can hope, anyway.

It isn't just the greedhead side of the party that is beginning to realize something has gone terribly wrong; I've been getting mail from Christian netizens who are harshly critical of Ashcroft and his efforts to Christianize America. On Usenet, however, the usual cross-swinging thugs are loudly applauding efforts to control Jews and other non-believers.

If the libertarians realize that without individual rights and liberties, the free market cannot function at all, and without constraints on the market, individual rights and liberties cannot exist, then they are well on their way to becoming allies.

Assuming, of course, that they can get over their paranoid suspicion that we still take our marching orders from Stalin. I just spoke to him ("What? You REALLY thought he was dead? Uncle Joe? Our Uncle Joe?") -- and HE said to tell you that we DON'T take orders from him.

Honest.