23 Ways of Poking Fun at Libertarians

Townhall.com ^ | August 3, 2013 | Daniel J. Mitchell

[Kaslin]

The very first bit of anti-libertarian humor I ever posted was this clever video about the anarcho-capitalist paradise of Somalia.

I then shared two cartoons, one on libertarian ice fishing and the other showinglibertarian lifeguards.

That was followed by a very funny list of the 24 types of libertarians.

But I haven’t shared anything making fun of people like me since this “think I do” montage last year.

Thanks to Buzzfeed, however, we now have something new for our collection. They came up with “23 Libertarian Problems” and here are two of my favorites from the list.

[Yardstick]

Well, apparently Sowell feels his positions are closer to libertarianism than conservatism. But you know Sowell better than Sowell?

Btw, here's Sowell on the WOD from his book Compassion Versus Guilt and Other Essays:

Drug raids are good politics, but they don't make a dent in the problem.

Like prohibition, the ban on drugs has been a financial bonanza for organized crime, and its profits have financed the corruption of law enforcement agencies, politicians, and judges.

It is a dangerous illusion that we have the omnipotence to undue every evil. A crusading mentality can easily makes things worse. Drugs are inherently a problem for the individual who takes them, but they are a much bigger problem for society, precisely because they are illegal.

This is just one more area where we have to recognize government has its limits. Ignoring those limits is not only reckless arrogance, but dangerous.

So maybe he knows what he's talking about when he expresses a preference for the libertarian label.

[Dead Corpse]

And substances that never even leave the State they were grown/manufactured in?

I just love watching bigger government RINO’s like you using liberal logic to twist the plain meaning of words to mean something completely different.

And yeah... You are. The Drug War BS has been used to bolster gun control as well in the courts. So while you say you don’t support those other extra-Constitutional agencies... You still support extra-Constitutional government.

If you want a drug prohibition, do it the same way they did it with alcohol. At least then folks like me wouldn’t think you were a hypocrite on top of being stupid.

And for the record, i think it’s dumb to punish drug usage. It’s its own penalty. Cut off their welfare and impose the death penalty as punishment for any crimes committed under the influence. Doesn’t matter is the “drug” in question is beer or meth...

[ansel12]

Man the silliness of you guys, and the dishonesty.

You just called for legalizing polygamy and of course gay marriage, and atheists being forbidden marriage unless they join a religion.

So the Army has to recognize all of the soldiers wives, unless he is atheist, then he can never be married.

[JCBreckenridge]

I’m saying given your source and his definition of ‘conservativism’ inside of it, it doesn’t match mine, or most people’s definition of it.

I also don’t see where he’s saying that if we make drugs legal that America’s problems will go away. We’ll just get different ones and many of them will be worse.

[stevie_d_64]

And these libertarians are gong to do something about those issues...

What are the Republicans NOT doing about Benghazi, Obamacare, etc etc???

Since they only have the majority in the House (and the purse strings), what exactly are they supposed to do about these issues???

I see hearings on Benghazi...Albiet they can only ask about things, IRS, NSA are in the same stranglehold...

Ohhhhhh, I see, libertarians are expecting results...Ok, I can dig it...Sure, I would like to see “results” as well, but I see reality, a political reality...Yer not going to see much while the liberals have control over the senate and 1600 Pennsylvania...Just not going to happen...

And if the libertarians were in the chairmanships/committees investigating these things you believe there would be “results”???

Hehehe, Don’t get me wrong, I’d like to see something for their efforts too, but again, that pesky political reality steps in and screws up that fantasy...

I believe as long as things are in a stalemate, and they (the entire government keep s kicking the can down the road, I think we have a chance, down that road to correct some of these problems, but even that is a longshot...

Libertarians need to grow their own political apparatus, and stop infiltrating what is left of a more conservative political force...If anything I believe the fecklessness of the republicans is due to the ever present spineless, go a long to get along moderates and Rand Paul types...And some of us are working to to get that house in order...As best we can...Much to the resistance of certain moderate/elitist/subversive political factions within that organization...

Just my opinion/observation, based upon years of participation in that organization, and I am just as frustrated as anyone else out there that is actually doing things instead of just bitching about it...

[Dead Corpse]

Please show me were marriage is defined anywhere in the Constitution? Or that this power to define marriage is given to the Feds at all...

Take your time...we’ll wait...

[Dead Corpse]

Same old games from you.

Back into the troll box for you.

[ansel12]

You are agreeing that Islam should define marriage, and that atheists can’t marry?

[JCBreckenridge]

“And substances that never even leave the State they were grown/manufactured in?”

Are you suggesting that they ought to be completely deregulated?

“bigger government RINO’s”

Yeah, killing a baby at 38 weeks = small government true republican. Opposition to drug legalization = big government RINO.

Are we in the mirror universe here?

“You still support extra-Constitutional government.”

I support the federal government’s constitutional authority to regulate the distribution of controlled goods across the border. This is a GOOD thing.

“If you want a drug prohibition”

Right, because liberaltarians like yourself would love to backstab social conservatives once again. Yawn.

You say you want state regulation, and yet you’ve been attacking Texas’ law barring possession. See, this is how I read liberaltarians.

1, does this federal law match what I believe is the law? YES

Then support it. .

2, does this federal law not match what I believe ought to be the law

NO

Then move down a level.

3, does this state law not match what I believe ought to be the law

NO

Then move down a level.

4, does this local law not match what I believe ought to be the law

NO

Then move down a level.

etc, etc, etc. This is the liberaltarian philosophy on any issue. Just keep going down a level until you get the laws that you like. Unrestricted drugs, abortion, gay marriage, etc.

Once you get those laws, then it works in reverse.

Do I have a local law I like -> Push to make it a state law to get rid of the state law I hate.

This is where you guys get your full statist allies.

Then repeat for the federal government. You guys have been doing this for 50 years now.

[cdcdawg]

Before the absurd ruling in Roe v. Wade, it was a state law matter, just like contraception was before Griswold v. Connecticut, just like sodomy was before Lawrence v. Texas (which overturned the correctly decided by unfortunately named Bowers v. Hardwick!).

What should be, and who gets to decide, are both pretty important questions. With the way federalizing of issues has gone, I am suspicious of federalizing much of anything.

Prior to the enactment of the 13th Amendment, I’m not sure Dred Scott was decided incorrectly. The law of the time was what it was. That’s why it needed to be changed. There was a lot of disagreement over the issue, to say the least.

[ansel12]

LOL, one cannot squeeze a drop of honesty from you.

You just called for legalizing polygamy and of course gay marriage, and atheists being forbidden marriage unless they join a religion.

So the Army has to recognize all of the soldiers polygamous wives, unless he is atheist, then he can never be married.

How can you post nonsense like that, and not explain it?

[Dead Corpse]

“Are you suggesting that they ought to be completely deregulated?”

At the Federal level and absent an Amendment giving the FedGov that power, yes...

At the State level, that is up to the people of that State.

As for abortion, l4l.org. If it’s human, killing it is murder. Getting tired of restating that.

I’d point-for-point the rest of your post... But i’m typing this on an iPad while my youngest daughter is using me as a jungle gym. My apologies...

[ansel12]

Before the absurd ruling in Roe v. Wade, it was a state law matter

What changed was the nation becoming aware that they were killing people, American people.

Once people realized the reality, then it made for an entirely different issue.

If innocent people are being murdered under a local law, then it is not local.

[JCBreckenridge]

The point is that personhood doesn’t depend on state lines. Any law that defines personhood on state lines will suffer the same fate as Dred Scott.

this is why personhood as a state issue (as abortion is), isn’t going to work. At best, it’s a stopgap. You don’t stop being a person just because you crossed the mason dixon line.

The general movement seems to be this. Statists recruit liberaltarians for assault on federal law they don’t like. Liberaltarians go along telling themslves, “it should be a state issue”.

Then what statists immediately do, is push for a federal law which squares with your personal beliefs. You don’t believe that marriage ought to be a man or a woman - so it’s best to fight discrimination and support this new federal law because it squares with what you believe.

Which leads the conservatives to go, huh?

There’’s really nothing in it for us to compromise with liberaltarians on anything. It hasn’t ever worked out well.

[Dead Corpse]

Troll...

[Yardstick]

So you’re disputing that Sowell said what he said because it was printed by a liberal source?

That seems kind of weak.

And quibbling with his definition of conservatism misses the point since he did more than just reject the conservative label. He also expressed a preference for the libertarian label.

And no, that’s not what he’s saying about drugs. What he’s saying is that making drugs illegal has made things worse, just as alcohol prohibition made things worse. This is a fairly standard libertarian argument.

[JCBreckenridge]

“At the Federal level and absent an Amendment giving the FedGov that power, yes”

Well, it’s not going to happen. There’s just too much of a public interest in regulating controlled substances, either at the state or federal level. I don’t have a problem with state regulation, but here’s the problem. States (and the folks on this side of the issue), don’t tend to respect state laws that tell them that they can’t do what they want to do. This is an issue.

If you want state laws, than this cuts both ways. If Texas does not want dope, then the folks in Colorado are going to have to respect that. Instead, what we have been seeing, and will see more of, is importation of dope into Texas, violation of possession laws, etc.

So it really doesn’t work ‘both ways’. It only works one way, were legalization proponents push product all over America.

“I’d point-for-point the rest of your post... But i’m typing this on an iPad while my youngest daughter is using me as a jungle gym. My apologies...”

No problem. Spend time with your daughter. :)

[muir_redwoods]

No, you’re simply wrong. Many libertarians oppose abortion. Inform yourself, it won’t hurt.

[ansel12]

Federal law has always had and needed it’s own definition of marriage, for it’s own laws and policies.

The federal government has had it’s own accepted definition of legal marriage since 1780, that was always one male, one woman until this year, when libertarians got a break for gay marriage at the federal level.

[JCBreckenridge]

That’s not what I said at all. I’m saying that the definition of ‘conservative’ that your source has Sowell stating, isn’t a very good definition of conservative.

I don’t think any conservative would find that definition compelling, so Sowell stating, “This is why I’m not a conservative” Isn’t very compelling either.

Then Sowell going on to state, “I disagree with libertarians on core principles”, also doesn’t make me very confident in stating that he’s a libertarian.