The Wall Street Journal performs some political anthropology "on the fringe." (Link via Glenn Reynolds).
Mommy, What's a Libertarian?
Comments to "Mommy, What's a Libertarian?":
smacky | March 15, 2005, 12:51pm | #
And for New York writer Bill Huhn "a Libertarian is a libertine-arian."That's what I've been saying all along.
I'm with thetruth, this is a stupid article. It reads like a book report. And moreover, as a Libertarian (albeit non-card-carrying), I don't like being compared with Republicans OR Democrats, even if meant to poke fun. I am not a Democrat-in-sheep's clothing or a Republican-in-drag or whatever other stupid analogy this boner dredged up.
Did the author actually use the word "gay" in the third-grade pejorative? Awesome.
Todd Fletcher | March 15, 2005, 1:05pm | #
Nice how she askes only non-libertarians for a definition.Chris Claypoole | March 15, 2005, 1:09pm | #
What a juvenile article! Why do research on someone's positions when you can just make light of them? I know many serious libertarians that are what even a Republican might call a "solid citizen" in terms of social behavior, and many who are quite charitable. The point is non-coercion, not promiscuity or stinginess!Funny, I don't consider myself overly hedonistic. I just don't think it's my business to prevent others from being so.
Why do Republicans make such shit comedians? That was more painful than watching Tough Crowd with Colin Quinn.
Mo | March 15, 2005, 1:15pm | #
That was terrible. Besides, it Republicans that are overly obessed with sex. Ever hear of a Libertarian utter the words "Man on dog or "Man on box turtle"? How about launch an expensive fact-finding campaign into the salacious Oral Office?If she was trying to be funny, I would recommend you save your money and not go see her perform in Republican Riot.
I'm fascinated to learn that atheism is apparently now part of the Libertarian Party platform. I must have missed that the last time I visited their website...
well, if you don't want to punish teh homoseshuals, you must HATE GOD.
All things considered, I've read much worse appraisals of libertarians. And much less humorous ones.
Something to piss off everyone. Well...every libertarian that is! (But especially the Christian ones!!)
WSDave | March 15, 2005, 1:37pm | #
"Someone who thinks he should get a medal for being home in time for dinner and helping the kids with homework regardless of what the lower part of his anatomy was doing earlier in the day."What I was doing earlier in the day was with my wife, and the medal she gave me wasn't for being on time for dinner. ; )
This article shows the real problem that Libs have: We let the media (and other people) define us.
Gary Gunnels | March 15, 2005, 1:38pm | #
I dunno, when I see the word arian, I think of the so-called arian heresy (at base it was* is a non-trinitarian belief which sees Christ as a seperate, though inferior to God, divine being). So the joke is pretty flat from my perspective.*While there are non-trinitarian sects still in existance, none of them hold the same exact views as the Arians.
TheReincarnationOfPaulRevere'sHorse | March 15, 2005, 1:41pm | #
They always say a political ideology does best when it can fit onto a bumpersticker. Perhaps the Libertarian Party should come up with a slogan. How about:Economically Conservative, Morally Indifferent
smacky | March 15, 2005, 1:43pm | #
Economically Conservative, Morally IndifferentHell, yeah! I would put that on my car. Right next to my PETA sticker and my Jesus fish sticker. (kidding!!)
thoreau | March 15, 2005, 1:48pm | #
Mine is the only car in the church parking lot with a Darwin fish.From time to time I've noticed a car in the church parking lot with "Don't agree with abortion? Don't have one!" I have no idea who this person is, but it is a rather liberal Catholic parish.
I think a good Libertarian bumper sticker would simply say "Libertarians don't take shit from nobody! (unless we're into Santorum)"
Click the "Read Responses" link on the WSJ page if you need to further elevate your blood pressure.
thoreau | March 15, 2005, 1:52pm | #
SR-There's only one response that really frustrated me. Most I just shrugged off, but this one annoyed me because of how clueless it was:
There is one weakness to the Libertarian Party, or segment of the political spectrum. Two divergent realities pulling in opposite directions. For being fiscally conservative at the same time as socially liberal is as conflicted as two guys in a canoe. One is paddling to go downstream, while the other one is paddling to go upstream. Quite the recipe for gridlock, getting tired, and getting nowhere.What is so conflicted about being fiscally conservative and socially liberal?
i've read left wing approximations of libertarianism which basically say "they want to go back to the 1890s, rape children and kick dogs"
Gary Gunnels | March 15, 2005, 1:53pm | #
thoreau,Church services never discuss the many naughty bits in the Bible. :)
Eric the .5b | March 15, 2005, 2:00pm | #
"The people Republicans weirdly get worked up in a lather about. No, not gays, the other ones."David | March 15, 2005, 2:03pm | #
To those of us who don't see a problem between the two? Nothing.I would argue that enforcing social "Morals" will cost money, and that money has to come from somewhere. Therefore, being socially "conservative" with the expectation that the Gov't, Police etc. will enforce that viewpoint would make one fiscally "liberal". Unless spending only counts when it's used to foster freedom among Americans rather than Arabs.
SR | March 15, 2005, 2:10pm | #
"i've read left wing approximations of libertarianism which basically say 'they want to go back to the 1890s, rape children and kick dogs'"You see? Yet another total distortion. Everyone knows Badnarik came out strongly against dog-kicking at the convention and stuck with that position all the way through Election Day. :-D
I thought we advocated both raping dogs and children. Wow! You really do learn something new every day.
Isaac Bartram | March 15, 2005, 2:35pm | #
I thought it was raping dogs and kicking children.Man, I gotta reread the RULE BOOK.
Xavier | March 15, 2005, 2:37pm | #
Most of the article was bad, but I thought this part was interesting:"Politically, the Libertarian world isn't a bad place to be. Libertarians have more credibility with the left than Republicans do, even though their conservative side is callous compared with the charitable Christian right. And they have more credibility with the right than Democrats do, despite being more godless than the left."
Lame, lame, lame. How lame? It made Medved's line about "losertarians" seem almost clever by comparison. Almost, but not quite...
unctorious | March 15, 2005, 3:49pm | #
A post by "Cousin Dave" on the La Shawn Barber's Corner blog had a different takeJulia Gorin is a fucking idiot.
Can someone now write a piece using the line, A post by "unctorious" at the Reason Hit and Run blog called Julia Gorin a fucking idiot
Healthy Libertine | March 15, 2005, 3:50pm | #
A conservative with an unhealthy preoccupation with sex.Please define "unhealthy" and explain why you think it is. In the meantime, I am going to look at porn. Its what I do best.
Todd Fletcher | March 15, 2005, 4:27pm | #
Yes, an "unhealthy preoccupation with sex" occurs when you aren't getting laid. Y'know, like Republicans.Stevo Darkly | March 15, 2005, 4:58pm | #
This article didn't affect me much. Of course, I've already been peripherally exposed by that book about the supposed libertarianism of Silicon Valley -- Cyberselfish, by Whatserface -- so I'm basically immune to clueless critiques like these.I also lurk over at freerepublic.com and do thread-title searches for "libertarians" (also libertarian, libertarianism, losertarian, liberaltarian, dopertarian) so I can read the debates between the libertarian and authoritarian wings of Freeperdom. Those threads can be interesting sometimes.
Minor Threat | March 15, 2005, 5:30pm | #
So long as she's going to over-simplify the Libertarian party, you'd think she'd define her terms by contrasting them with overly-simplified definitions of the Republican and Democrat parties. Here are my suggestions:Democrats believe they should decide how the government should spend your money telling you what to do.
Republicans believe they should decide how the government should spend your money telling you what not to do.
Libertarians believe it's your money and no one but you should decide how you spend it.
Rick Barton | March 15, 2005, 7:22pm | #
Ok, I went back and read it as humor. Now I get it-it's not funny.MJ | March 15, 2005, 10:40pm | #
"I'm fascinated to learn that atheism is apparently now part of the Libertarian Party platform. I must have missed that the last time I visited their website..."-SRI figure the author has been lurking around here for research.
A Son of A Founding Father | March 15, 2005, 11:04pm | #
Quote:i've read left wing approximations of libertarianism which basically say "they want to go back to the 1890s, rape children and kick dogs"
1890s? What sort of crap is that? Libertarians want to go back to the *1790s*. Jeez, can't they get anything right?
Rick Barton | March 15, 2005, 11:07pm | #
I'm fascinated to learn that atheism is apparently now part of the Libertarian Party platform.Surely that can't be true. As a non-believer in those matters, I would still object strongly to atheism being in a Libertarian political platform, unless it was just part of a general religious freedom section.
Rick Barton | March 16, 2005, 12:05am | #
...Of course, it was only a ref. to the piece. OK. I got worried there for a sec.dhex | March 16, 2005, 10:32am | #
i think the whole 1890s thing comes in because:A) robber barons
B) robber barons = laisse faire capitalism
C) capitalism bad
D) laisse faire capitalism worse
i remember being taught in social studies in grade school that the late 19th century was one of unfettered capitalism, so it ties in with the general thrust.