It should come as no surprise that we here at Lean Left reserve a special sort of contempt for libertarians. Hell, we’ve even reserved an entire category for mocking them. Kevin and I have often joked that Libertarianism is like Communism: It looks good on paper, but one only needs to spend about five minutes around other human beings to figure out why it can never work. And SayUncle (himself either a small-l libertarian or a South Park Republican, depending on when you ask him) likes to say that to see why Libertarianism can’t work, you need only watch an episode of Cops. (I’m pretty sure he’s quoting somebody else when he says that.)
But what is it about libertarians that drives us batty? I can’t speak for the Kevins, but I know a big part of what bugs me about them: It’s that they’re the ultimate naysayers. They’re really good at bitching about stuff, and telling you all about what they oppose and why they oppose it, but when it comes time to suggest a better idea, they’re nowhere to be found. If they respond at all, which isn’t often, it’s with the most vacuous rhetoric imaginable: “Let The Markettm decide,” they’ll say, or “We don’t need new laws, let’s enforce the existing ones.” Don’t look to them for anything helpful or useful. They’ve got nothing.
Nearly 50 million Americans without health care? “Get a better job!” Yep, just put your lousy job’s pay stub under your pillow, and the Better Job Fairy (aka, “The Invisible Hand of the Markettm“) will handle everything. (And if you’re a single parent without health care, be sure to leave a note asking the Better Job Fairy to call her friend, the Day Care Fairy. Maybe she can even hook you up with the Time Fairy and the Money Fairy so you can get job training or a better education in between working two jobs and raising your kids. But I digress…)
That’s but one example. Name any problem society faces, and libertarians have vacuous, untenable explanations as to why we don’t need to do anything about it. Say what you will about liberals and conservatives, but at least they’re trying to address society’s problems. You may disagree with how they’re going about it, but they’re trying to go about it. Not so, the libertarians. All they want to do is tell you all about why what you want to do won’t work, and why your idea is a bad one.
Don’t get me wrong, though. I’ve got nothing against informed dissent. In fact, it’s critical if this whole “government of, by, and for the people” thing is going to work. Look no further than Kennedy/Vietnam or Cheney/Iraq to see why lack of dissent is bad. But that dissent can’t take the form of that guy in the meeting (you know the guy, every meeting has one) who shoots down everyone else’s ideas without ever offering a better idea. (As an old boss of mine used to say, if you’re complaining about one idea without offering a better one, you’re just whining.)
And indeed, there are parts of Libertarianism that are actually good and make sense, if kept within reason. There really are a lot of cases where we (and, by extension, the state) ought to err on the side of leaving people alone. Behaviors that don’t hurt anybody shouldn’t be criminalized. Even self-destructive behaviors needn’t be criminalized or regulated. (Now, encouraging people to engage in self-destructive behavior, and actively striving to profit from self-destructive behavior, are other matters). No, it’s not so much Libertarianism that’s the problem. It’s self-described libertarians. And in this regard, I find that the small-l variety to be even more annoying than the ones that go all out and embrace the big-L. (At least those in the latter category have the balls to commit.)
You know what libertarians are? They’re that friend you had growing up (and everybody had this friend) who, whenever anyone suggested “Let’s do X,” no matter what X is, they didn’t want to do it, but when asked what they want to do, they say “I don’t know.” They’re the ultimate hedge-betters. They never have to take any blame when things don’t work, because nothing was ever their idea, and they opposed all of everyone else’s idea. They can avoid accountability for any and all problems.
So until self-described libertarians start putting forward a positive agenda; until they start giving us viable ideas for what they are willing to do to address society’s problems; until they start taking ownership of something, anything, apart from their own selfish asses, I not-so-humbly submit that there’s simply no reason to take them seriously.
Related posts, yet-to-be-written: The Markettm Doesn’t Give A Shit, and Libertarians Deny Global Warming Because Libertarianism Has No Solution To Global Warming
January 11th, 2007
|
Libertarian Problem Solving, Weekend Flame Bait |
53 comments
At least he’s honest. A little paranoid, maybe. OK, maybe a lot paranoid. But honest. 
Disclosure: I’m a gun owner and a CCW permit holder. I’m a gun owner primarly because I enjoy shooting, and because I was given a nice firearm as a gift. I’m a CCW permit holder because it’s easy in Tennessee, because it makes my GOP in-laws in Wisconsin insanely jealous, and because in the extremely unlikely (and hopefully never) event that I actually have to use the gun for other than recreational shooting (think home invasion here), I can show authorities that I’ve at least taken basic gun safety and have demonstrated basic proficiency.
January 11th, 2007
|
I do too have a life, Bloggin, Weekend Flame Bait |
20 comments
Bush wants a war with Iran. It has been part of the neo-con plans from the beginning and Bush is desperate for something that will magically turn his disaster in Iraq into a glorious victory. That is the genesis of this comment:
Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.
The neo-cons really appear to believe that Iran really is the source of all evil in Iraq (never mind the ongoing sectarian strife, never mind that the anti-American insurgency is largely Sunni, never mind that the government of Iraq is made up of people formerly supported by or allied with Iran) and that they can make everything better by beating up on Iraq. Right from the start, neo-cons were saying things like “Everyone wants to go to Baghdad; real men want to go to Tehran”. Never mind Al-Qaeda, Iran is the real enemy.
And today, we have this report:
US forces have stormed an Iranian consulate in the northern Iraqi town of Irbil and seized six members of staff.
The troops raided the building at about 0300 (0001GMT), taking away computers and papers, according to Kurdish media and senior local officials.
The US military would only confirm the detention of six people around Irbil.
… One Iranian news agency with a correspondent in Irbil says five US helicopters were used to land troops on the roof of the Iranian consulate.
It reports that a number of vehicles cordoned off the streets around the building, while US soldiers warned the occupants in three different languages that they should surrender or be killed.
If a country did this to the US, it would probably be considered an act of war. It appears that the Bushies are going to escalate the rhetoric and the military provocations until either Iran over-reacts or the escalation process leads naturally to large scale action against Iran. If they do this, there will be no debates in Congress, there will be no authorizations. One day, we will wake up and find that we are in a shooting war of some kind (probably special forces and air power) with Iran.
Bush doesn;t consider escalating in Iraq going all in. Going all in, to he and his neo-con handlers, means Iran and Syria. And it looks like they are serious about pushing their chips to the center of the table.
January 11th, 2007
|
Iraq, Iran |
7 comments
George W. Bush, from last night’s speech:
Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have.
Michale Leeden:
it sounded like our soldiers will get Rules of Engagement that haven’t been neutered, that are not PC, but ROEs that are appropriate to winning a war rather than avoiding casualties. Maybe…
Army manual on counter-insurgency(pdf link), written by Bush’s choice to lead the Army in Iraq:
Though firmness by security forces is often necessary to establish a secure environment, a government that exceeds accepted local norms and abuses its people or is tyrannical generates resistance to its rule. People who have been maltreated or have had close friends or relatives killed by the government, particularly by its security forces, may strike back at their attackers. Security force abuses and the social upheaval caused by collateral damage from combat can be major escalating factors for insurgencies.
…
Any use of force generates a series of reactions. There may be times when an overwhelming effort is necessary to destroy or intimidate an opponent and reassure the populace. Extremist insurgent combatants often have to be killed. In any case, however, counterinsurgents should calculate carefully the type and amount of force to be applied and who wields it for any operation. An operation that kills five insurgents is counterproductive if collateral damage leads to the recruitment of fifty more insurgents. 1-142. In a COIN environment, it is vital for commanders to adopt appropriate and measured levels of force and apply that force precisely so that it accomplishes the mission without causing unnecessary loss of life or suffering. Normally, counterinsurgents can use escalation of force/force continuum procedures to minimize potential loss of life. These procedures are especially appropriate during convoy operations and at checkpoints and roadblocks. Escalation of force (Army)/force continuum (Marine Corps) refers to using lesser means of force when such use is likely to achieve the desired effects and Soldiers and Marines can do so without endangering themselves, others, or mission accomplishment. Escalation of force/force continuum procedures do not limit the right of self-defense, including the use of deadly force when such force is necessary to defend against a hostile act or demonstrated hostile intent. Commanders ensure that their Soldiers and Marines are properly trained in such procedures and, more importantly, in methods of shaping situations so that small-unit leaders have to make fewer split-second, life-or-death decisions.
So if Leeden thinks that Bush’s plan to now worry less about civilian casualties is a good one, then what does he think of Bush putting the man who wrote those words in charge of Iraq? Why, after reading those words, does anyone think less discriminate use of force is going to lesson the insurgency? Why is Bush, if Leeden’s interpretation correct, turning is back on the preferred strategy of his chosen commander before that man has had a chance to implement it? And why, after the destruction of Fallujah, the use of American air power in the cities of Iraq, innumerable tales of innocents killed at checkpoints and anti-insurgent sweeps, and the resulting rise in the size, effectiveness, and intensity of the insurgency does anyone think that the problem is that the US has been too careful in its use of force? Leeden and Bush appear to be drifting dangerously close to “Exterminate the brutes”. Do they understand that loose rules of engagements means that more innocents are going to be killed, and thus more and more people will have cause to think the US is interested not in democracy or freedom or self defense but in the conquest of the Muslim world? Do they understand that killing people — especially innocents — makes Bin Laden’s attacks on the US look accurate? Do they remember that there is a world outside of Iraq and that there are terrorists who would love to use the pictures of dead Iraqi civilians to encourage more people to support and conduct terrorist activities? Doe they understand that once you stop carrying about killing the very people you are supposed to be protecting that you have already lost the war of ideas?
UPDATE Formatting on the Army panel excerpt fixed by reader Justin.
January 11th, 2007
|
Politics, Iraq, Terrorism |
one comment
