House of Eratosthenes

Becky, the Girl in Short Shorts Talking About Whatever, is ticked. She’s ticked at the democrats because the democrats wimped out to President Bush. Like millions of anti-war bloggers and activists, she wanted them to hold firm, not wimp out; she wanted them to hang on to the bitter end. About — wimping out to the terrorists. She wanted those limp flaccid democrats to carry the fight to President Bush, so that they could be victorious and prevail, in the battle to get him to stop carrying the fight to the terrorists, and stop trying to be victorious and stop trying to prevail. She’s upset at them for caving in to him, as he continues to not cave in to the terrorists.

She’s upset about the “wimp out” that took place in the battle to wimp out.

She wants to see more determination and resolve…in the battle to not show any determination or resolve.

She wants more spine shown in the battle to show spinelessness.

Targeted wimping-out.

This is, as I’ve commented a few times over at her blog, what is wrong with libertarianism in 2008. You use that word (capital-L) “Libertarian!” and I think — more freedom. People can do what they choose to do as long as it does not harm others. More authority at the local level and less at the federal level.

The war has badly damaged the Libertarian party. Badly. Too many loud, angry small-l libertarians are insistent on a falsehood — that capital-L Libertarianism is inherently anti-war. Well, it isn’t. Capital-L Libertarianism is about the right to defend yourself; individuals have the right to defend their homes, states have the right to defend themselves from invasion by illegal aliens if the feds aren’t up to the job, and the federal government has the authority and the responsibility to defend the nation. The small-l libertarians insist that “Libertarians” see the Libertarian movement their way, not my way; that there are no Libertarians who recognize true Libertarianism as Libertarianism.

Well, they’re wrong. This is a red-hot issue in the Libertarian movement: When we use that word on ourselves, are we calling ourselves a bunch of deranged Jimmy-Carter peaceniks? Some, like Becky, say yes; some say no.

Becky Does Not Make Sense Today What is really destructive about this, is the method by which these pronouncements are made. Former President Carter’s comments and bullying implications notwithstanding, there is no verbiage in the Constitution or in any treaty, not on any legally binding hunk of paper floating around anywhere, that outlaws preemptive war. When our small-l libertarians call that “illegal,” they mean someone said “That’s just wrong! Can I get an amen here?” and a bunch of other small-l libertarians said “Hell yeah!”

Populism, in other words. The Libertarian movement has been subject to an incursion by anti-war peacenik populists. That is why they are small-l libertarians. Unlike Becky, most of these folks couldn’t give two hoots about the ideals that are really part of capital-L Libertarianism. They couldn’t give a rat’s ass about states’ rights, or the right to home-school, or ratcheting down on federal spending for social programs, or any of the other stuff; they just want to be a bunch of anti-war halfwits.

The foundation of anti-war halfwitism, however, is that if one side is engaged in a war, and it calls a halt to the war, the other side will automatically stop fighting too. That’s why we don’t want these people making important decisions about anything — they don’t understand human nature and they don’t care to understand it. They’re delusional Utopian thinkers who do all their reckoning with reality while high on airplane model glue fumes.

The foundation of this small-l libertarianism that results when classic capital-L Libertarianism mates with populism, is — words like “constitution” and “illegal” are defined by that “Can I Get An Amen Here?” process. Which, in my book, is the direct opposite of capital-L Libertarianism. This is the difference, when you get down to it, between what Ron Paul was pretending to be and what Ron Paul really is.

Their ultimate goal, of course, is to make sure our country wimps out, on everything, and everyone living within it wimps out too. All the time — except when people oppose the small-l libertarianism. Essentially, it is a political movement that insists that nobody, anywhere, at any time, is worth fighting or resisting…except the enemies of that particular political movement.

Targeted wimping-out; targeted standing-up. No real principles involved in any of this. Just a half-assed effort to put forth the appearance.

Sorry, small-l libertarians. If we have a need for a political movement like that, that’s exactly what democrats are for. One of those is enough of a headache, we don’t need two.

Update: Link submitted by Becky’s commenter Mark Wadsworth: Democrats Vow Not To Give Up Hopelessness. Good ol’ Onion.

That’s satire news, for those of you who may not be in the know.

In a press conference on the steps of the Capitol Monday, Congressional Democrats announced that, despite the scandals plaguing the Republican Party and widespread calls for change in Washington, their party will remain true to its hopeless direction.

“We are entirely capable of bungling this opportunity to regain control of the House and Senate and the trust of the American people,” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said to scattered applause. “It will take some doing, but we’re in this for the long and pointless haul.”

“We can lose this,” Reid added. “All it takes is a little lack of backbone.”

m-heh!!! 🙂

She’s upset about the “wimp out” that took place in the battle to wimp out.

She wants to see more determination and resolve…in the battle to not show any determination or resolve.

She wants more spine shown in the battle to show spinelessness.

Classic!
- philmon | 06/25/2008 @ 17:20
I have never bothered commenting here–because what’s the point? But it being the monsoon season here in Arizona I am stuck inside with a thunderstorm and saw that you had a few things to say about me.

The reason I don’t comment is that, though you do have some good instincts at times, way too often you devolve into blather and the typical name calling “Jimmy Carter peacenik”–wtf does that have to do with anything and even remotely relevant–it was under his administration the FISA court was started. Then there are funny punsters like the previous commenter.

My comments on the wiretapping bill had nothing to do with the glorious war, and everything to do with what powers should be conferred on the executive, and if those who knowingly conspire with him to do an end run around the constitution should be held responsible.

You never did answer my question on whether you are enthused about an Obama administration having any additional powers. You pretend conservatives, have become like the left–they have always wanted a powerful central government until, as they haplessly found out,their guys weren’t in power–and Bush came to town with the Republican toadies and started doing things like taking the position the federal government should outlaw same sex marriage and already had the power to regulate an abortion performed in a free clinic in Cheyenne under the Interstate Commerce Clause. The chickens came home to roost when SCOTUS ruled the Congress did have that kind of power.

You want an imperial presidency to fight for your causes, but you better be certain that the Bushies, or at least a watered down version of them like McCain, keeps a grip on the White House forever and ever.

~Becky
- beckychr007 | 06/28/2008 @ 17:59
Becky,

Wonderful to see you here. I mean that.

1. Name-calling: Folks like you get to do it (words like “Bushies” and “imperial presidency” and “Republican toadies” and…and…and); folks who disagree with you, don’t get to do it. Is that just about right?

2. Obama administration having additional powers. Here’s what the — I guess I’d call them — “neo-libertarians” in your camp seem to miss. This country is 232 years old this summer. Throughout this time, the pendulum of power has been rocking W-A-A-Y back and forth between the Capitol and the White House. Andrew Jackson and FDR had lots of power…between those two were Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland, Harrison, etc. who had practically nothing. Powerful executives and powerless executives are both within scope of the nation’s tradition, and neither one of those two actually define the nation’s tradition. Neo-libertarians, however, seem to define a powerless executive as the foundation of something called “civil liberties” for the rest of us. I think Thomas Jefferson and some others would’ve argued with you about that. From what I know about the vision of the Founding Fathers, I’m convinced if they thought the committee was as efficient in deciding things like this as a competent individual — we wouldn’t have a presidency. The executive is there to do things that a board of egotists can’t do…and there are a lot of things like that.

3. Not sure if it came through here, but my objection to your viewpoint is one of nature. As in, the nature of the scorpion when he’s ferried across that river by the frog (I know you’re well educated so I’ll not insult you by repeating that fable, or it’s parable). You’re disappointed in the democrats for not standing up to Bush. What they’re supposed to be standing up to Bush about, is standing down. Well, they stood down. What they did was in the nature of what you wanted them to do.

4. Being afraid of a President Obama. Believe me, if he gets in, he’ll have much bigger worries than spying on li’l ol’ me, and I’ll have much bigger worries than about whether he’ll take the time to do so. The biggest issue would be that he’d have the responsibility of defending the nation, and wouldn’t do it. What Clinton did with bin Laden during the ’90s, turning down the Sudan when they offered him up on a platter, treating the terrorist like some kind of scofflaw who hadn’t paid his taxes or returned his library books — we’d see that again under Obama, in spades. Maybe we wouldn’t get another September 11 out of the deal…but we’d definitely be asking for another one, because that’s what we got after Clinton was done doing his damage.

5. As a final point — the popularity earned by countries, sects, factions, political parties, tribes…and white guys…by being harmless — is vastly overrated. I’ve got 41 years of experience walking around in a man’s body that you don’t have, and I can tell you that grandiloquently displayed harmlessness is not a precursor to increased popularity. And actually, you’ve got X many years of being (on some level) attracted to men, so like most women, you don’t need to be told this. Nice guys sleep alone; they aren’t respected. Countries that make a grand show of displaying their harmlessness, don’t end up respected. They end up being better enemies than friends, and history shows us they end up being invaded. Therefore — any ally who loves us only so long as we neglect defense, is an ally not worth having.

Got loads of respect for your intellectual acumen, Becky, but I have to say I don’t have any respect at all for the isolationist anti-war plank. It shows all the intelligence of a five-year-old who’s somehow convinced if he hides under the covers and closes his eyes real tight, the monster under his bed can’t see him. Except in our case, as of 9/11/01, we’ve had it demonstrated concretely that the monster under our bed is quite real…
- mkfreeberg | 06/28/2008 @ 20:12
Hey — on a completely unrelated topic:

My family left Tempe when I was six and I haven’t been back to Arizona since then, but I have memories of the smell of the oncoming torrents and all that lovely knee-deep water in midsummer. Hope you take some hi-res pics of the flooded streets and put ’em up on the page. Just a thought.

Again, thanks for stopping by!
- mkfreeberg | 06/28/2008 @ 20:18

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Targeted Wimp-OutWednesday, June 25th, 2008

Targeted Wimp-Out
Wednesday, June 25th, 2008