Liebertarian? What's Boortz smoking?
Boortz muses on the possibility of Joe Lieberman jumping parties. Well, yeah, it could interesting and all. But then he says:
How about switching to the Libertarian Party?
Yeah, right, Neal. Look, the main substantive difference between the Democrats and the Bush admi. is the Iraq war. It's really the only current idea they have, the rest of their ideas being stale rehashes of economic ideas that failed so long ago that the Republicans think they're conservative ideas. So Lieberman going 'Pug is at least within the realm of the possible. But he's in no way a philosophical libertarian, and given that majority opinion about Iraq in the LP these days makes Cindy Sheehan look like a neocon, there's really no motive for him to jump in that direction. Nor would his presense be welcome by anone besides Boortz, who is buddy-buddy with Bob "no drugs, no Wicca" Barr, who is now an LP Region Rep, and who really needs to be Zumboed on the drug issue.
Comments
Posted by: Patrick
Posted on: June 30, 2010 09:56 AM
Nice term. I have a better use for it. I use it (LIEbertarian) to describe actual libertarians. These guys are full of it. They don't really want small or no government with unlimited personal freedom. If that is what they wanted, they can move to Somalia, which has no government and all the freedom one can soak up. How is that working for Somalians? What these hacks really want is all the benefits of a taxpayer funded government, but none of the responsibility for sustaining it.
Posted by: Jeffrey Quick
Posted on: June 30, 2010 10:12 AM
Patrick, why don't you ask a Somali that? They've got a right to their own societal institutions, ours are different from theirs, and a market anarchy would look different here. The definition of a minarchist is somebody who wants only a few of the "benefits" of government, and is willing to pay for them. Is that sustainable? In a fallen world, maybe not, but it's worth the attempt.
Shorter version: you're full of shit.