(Most) Libertarians are full of shit

Disclaimer: I'm not actually well-versed in the history of political parties and labels. My knowledge is based on people I've met in daily life, mainstream media, and - yes - the internet. I don't expect to be right all the time about everything. I make a lot of statements based on my personal observations and research, but as I said, I'm certainly not an expert on the ideology of the conservative Libertarian party. Also, some people might claim that I am confusing the beliefs of the Liberterian party with the Constitution Party. I'm not. See - any contemporary libertarian and analyze his/her beliefs: Glenn Beck, Rand or Ron Paul, Sharron Angle, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, etc. The only difference is that the Constitution Party is way more open about being insane Christian nationalists. That said, here is my rant:

The Libertarian is the most annoying of the Pseudo-Intellectuals you will meet in your lifetime (aside from me).

"Libertarian" is also a misnomer. Its root word is "liberty." We associate liberty with individual freedom. But it's interesting to note that libertarianism isn't really about liberty at all... unless your understanding of liberty = owning as many guns as possible and salivating over a grossly deformed 2nd Amendment.

Actually, I'm talking about the libertarian right (like Rand Paul or Sara Palin); not necessarily the libertarian left. I think it's possible that libertarianism was once a great concept a long time ago, (like communism once was), but it's been hijacked and distorted so many times over the years that the label is now property of far-right conservatives who are disgruntled with the "moderate" ideas of the Republican party. (Just as the words "communism" and "socialism" have been hijacked by the public as trigger words to summon a scare-tactic image of a totalitarian/tyrannical government. Few would remember what these words once stood for: collective autonomy, a classless society, social & economic equality.)

I think it's possible that Ayn Rand wasn't wrong all the time, just poorly misguided in her political theories and possibly a self-loathing misogynist. (Although I do admire her for her excellent defense of atheism!) I'm sure she had great ideas about individualism and personal liberties buried underneath, but all of the good theories she espoused have been destroyed by egotistical authoritarian types who often confuse the idea of "doing whatever you want" with "making others do whatever you want."

The official website for the Libertarian party looks appealing and very innocuous. But let's talk about the typical libertarian conservative in the public eye - the type who appeals to the Tea Party movement: He wants to abolish the minimum wage, abolish taxation, legalize drugs, criminalize abortion, build a "strong national defense" (code for "wage war whenever I please; the UN be damned"), dismantle or withdraw from the United Nations, get rid of affirmative action, erase Title IV of the Civil Rights Act, make English the official language of the US, close the borders (no exceptions), encourage racial profiling, do away with public education, obliterate any possibility of allowing same-sex marriages in the US, do away with any amount of gun control, and ignore the wall of separation (separation of church & state), among other things.

How many of these beliefs have anything to do with the freedom of the individual person, which is what "libertarianism" is supposed to be about?

abolish the minimum wage. How does this allow for individual freedom? The only liberty this allows is for businesses and corporations to have the freedom to return to the sweatshop labor seen at the dawn of the industrial age. The idea is that people won't work for companies that don't pay their employees decent wages, and therefore, those unethical companies will founder and cease to exist. But in actuality, we've already seen that good old capitalist competition won't do away with businesses that only pay $1 a day. See: any non-revisionist history textbook. If a they're allowed to, they'll do it. And the low wages aren't necessarily a deterrent to potential job-seekers. If someone is desperate enough to get a job, and the $1-a-day sweatshop folks are the only ones hiring, there will be plenty of desperate employees lining up for work every morning. See: China. How can a person making only a $1 per day be truly free?

end taxation. Yes, I can see how this might have a lot to do with individual liberty. After all, without any taxes, you no longer feel like a nameless entity forever indebted to the government. But without taxation, society soon falls apart. The one barrier that hard-right conservatives want to remove in order to reach maximum personal liberty will also act as the catalyst to destroy personal liberty. Who is going to build our roads and schools, run our post offices, build our national parks, open libraries, and pay our veterans? The libertarian right would have us believe that this can all be solved by allowing private businesses to do all of this. But with that comes the potential for monopolization, potential denial of services (discrimination), and unethical labor practices (see above). Nobody is claiming that our government is doing an excellent job maintaining the infrastructure of the country or educating children -- but allowing private businesses to do this job would be catastrophic. I mean, consider this... we now live in a country where private corporations and businesses can now openly endorse & finance candidates because these corporations are considered "persons." How free are we when our country is run by multi-million dollar corporations and not the actual citizens or elected officials?

legalize drugs. I don't disagree with this. Legalizing drugs and taking them out of the black market will bolster the US economy and will make drug-use seem less taboo to young people (and we all know that the less taboo something is, the less appeal it holds... therefore you actually have less drug usage over time and fewer criminals.) Personally, I have been drug-free, alcohol-free, and tobacco-free for my entire life, and I'm very personally against any substance use... BUT even I see the sense in legalizing drugs like marijuana. What I don't understand is why libertarian conservatives want to decriminalize drug use (win for bodily autonomy & personal liberty), but they want to criminalize abortion (huge blow for bodily autonomy & personal liberty).

criminalize abortion. This makes absolutely no sense from a purely libertarian perspective. For a party that claims to hate "big government," they sure as hell want the government to interfere in the lives of ordinary citizens, especially women. It's also amusing to me that most libertarians are crazy anti-choicers, yet Ayn Rand was pro-choice.

build a strong "national defense." As I said, this is essentially code for: wage war whenever I please, the UN be damned. Modern-day libertarians are apparently very skilled at cognitive dissonance... because people like Rand Paul are so obsessed with protecting the "life" of the "unborn," yet they can't see how they are endangering countless innocent [actual]lives by being war-mongers.

dismantle or withdraw from the United Nations. This goes along with the above post because if libertarians had their way, those UN hippies wouldn't be allowed to have a say on whether they can wage war or not.

get rid of affirmative action. Libertarians think they live in some kind of post-racial world where either a)racism no longer exists and everyone is colorblind OR b)the tables of racism have been turned against...gasp!...white people! The unqualified black people are taking the white jobs! It's true that affirmative action is also about putting more women in male-dominated work spaces, but when you hear libertarians moan and groan about AA, they're mostly worried about non-whites. They will tell you in great detail just how "affirmative action = racism." Pretending that affirmative action is unnecessary and pretending that racism/sexism is gone just because we have a black president (or Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House) is dangerous. In the end, it's about making sure that minorities and women are not as economically free or privileged. There is nothing "libertarian" about the concept of doing away with affirmative action.

erase Title IV of the Civil Rights Act. This was in the news recently when Rand Paul spoke with Rachel Maddow about his racist apologist beliefs. Basically, he thinks it's perfectly okay for businesses to discriminate based on race (see: Jim Crow) because.... well, I can't seem to even fathom why he would think this is okay? It, um, obviously didn't work during the Jim Crow era. Those businesses didn't founder like you would expect; they just made racial tensions even worse. Actually, it's because he thinks the economy should be totally free and outside of all laws and concepts of race and discrimination. Here's a hint: it's not. And we do not live in a post-racial world. There is nothing libertarian about a world where people are barred from eating at a lunch counter because of the color of their skin, Rand Paul. You are full of shit.

make English the official language of the US This smacks of so much xenophobia and cultural ignorance that it's almost laughable. Yet there are people out there who think this is a totally normal proposition. There's nothing about this concept that would improve the lives of Americans. Oh, shit, sorry, I forgot how much you hate the fact that you have to press 1 for English. Or that you work with a lot of people who only speak Spanish around you? Does this make you feel like they are talking about you? That they are maybe plotting your downfall and trying to get you fired? Have you ever thought that you are full of shit? The reality is that most of those Spanish-speaking individuals can speak/read/write English very well, but they choose not to, because 1) they are already around so many other Spanish speakers, 2) they want to retain a sense of cultural connectedness, and 3) ignorant fuckwits like you make it more difficult for them to fully assimilate. Where is the personal freedom and the libertarian spirit in forcing individuals to speak a language that they are not yet comfortable using?

close the borders (no exceptions) For some reason, the delineation of imaginary borders on a map causes certain folks to cultivate the mindset that "outsiders" are "illegal" (with very few exceptions). Like the exclusive boys-only treehouses of childhood, some people will always have the same childish understanding of their country and national identity. The truth is that no human being is "illegal." As long as the people coming into the US aren't criminal or drug traffickers, then why should we worry? Oh, right, the usual bullshit: they're stealing our jobs and soaking up our tax dollars. Wrong and Wrong. Would we really have a society conducive to true libertarian values if we classify certain people as "illegal"? No. So, why do so many libertarians want to close off the borders and deny amnesty to undocumented immigrants...?

encourage racial profiling This contains the answer to the question I asked above. Racism. It's alive and well, especially in Arizona. We already know that using racial profiling to stop crime doesn't work, yet a good chunk of the American public seem to think that using racial profiling to combat illegal immigration will work. You know, because all of the non-white folks are most likely immigrants. Right. Actually, this tactic just makes racial tension even worse. It looks like the federal government agrees, because they have finally decided to sue Arizona and fight SB 1070. A libertarian society does not arrest people for racial suspicion.

do away with public education The rationale behind this one is this: since public education is miserably failing, then we might as well privatize the education sector so that the competition will eliminate the shitty schools. At first glance, this sounds great. Until you realize that the best schools (the ones that win out in the competition) will also end up being the most expensive schools to attend. Hello capitalism. Therefore, as a rule, we would end up discriminating against the poorest children, including racial minorities. They would have to go to the failing schools. Granted, the poorest kids are already going to the shittiest schools as it is, but you can expect to see this worsen if public education is dismantled. Also, if all schools became private entities, we would no longer be allowed freedom from religion in our schools, and we wouldn't necessarily have protection from sex/gender discrimination. There is nothing libertarian about a society that educates its children differently based on their economic capability. **If you know about a solution to the public education problem, I would be glad to hear about it. I am comfortable admitting my ignorance in this area; I don't know much about the state of education in this country (aside from the fact that it sucks; I would know, I experienced it first-hand). But what can we do to improve it aside from totally removing the role of the federal government?

obliterate any possibility of allowing same-sex marriages in the US For a political party that claims to hate the overreach of federal government and despises its meddling in the lives of ordinary citizens, this one sure is a doozy of cognitive dissonance. See also: the libertarian's beliefs about abortion. It's also baffling to me how anyone could think that gays being allowed to marry will somehow effect other marriages and families. Seriously, give me one proven way that this will negatively impact your life. What kind of "libertarian" wants to inhibit another person's freedom to marry?

do away with any amount of gun control This is an area in which I feel sort of ambivalent (as in: not a raging-pissed-off-opinionated-bitch, but still pretty opinionated). However, I lean toward the belief that our society needs some gun control in order to keep crime rates low. Libertarians seem to think that ANY amount of gun control, no matter how miniscule, is a horrifying infringement on their 2nd Amendment rights. Remember that guy in Pittsburgh who killed 3 cops because he thought Obama was going to take away his guns? Right. That is what most conservative libertarians and teabaggers are like except they haven't killed anyone yet. Why can't we all agree that's it's a good idea to do background checks? that it's a good idea to outlaw the sale of assault rifles to non-military civilians? that it's a good idea to close the loop hole that allows anyone and their 5-year-old grandson to buy tech 9mm's and glocks at a gun show without so much as proof of ID?

ignore the wall of separation (separation of church & state) Libertarians and Constitutionalists are always the most vocal about what they think the "founding fathers" intended for this country. Unfortunately, they are also most often incorrect. America is not a Christian nation. The founders clearly intended for freedom of - (as well as freedom from) - religion. See: any non-revisionist US history textbook. There isn't even any room for argument here. Especially if these people really know what the definition of "libertarian" is -- then they wouldn't be so hell-bent on forcing their religion down everyone's throat. Thanks, but I would prefer that the United States NOT become a theocracy like Iran. (p.s. Ayn Rand was also an atheist.)

Conclusion: Most conservative libertarians/teabaggers are just Republicans who are ashamed to call themselves Republicans because it's out of favor... and anything with "liberty" in it just sounds cooler. (They don't really understand what it means.)