P.J. O'Rourke on Libertarians (and Others)

Libertarian humorist P.J. O'Rourke has an amusing article that ran in yesterday's Daily Beast that I thought I would post for those who may have missed it. I think libertarians and quasi-libertarians will find it particularly entertaining:

Up To A Point: My Problem With People Who Agree With Me
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...my-problem-with-people-who-agree-with-me.html

Humorous anecdotes and observations aside, I found this comment interesting:

This is true, but it leaves out the fact that most Americans, along with most Democrats and Republicans, aren't consistent when it comes to individual freedom and the size and power of government.

I'd be interested to hear what like-minded, libertarian-types think...

 

Libertarian principles are dandy, and would work just find in small a community of like-minded individuals. But in practice, the varying levels of human greed and lust for power would doom any society that would attempt such a form of government.

Having asked libertarians to offer viable solutions to the problems faced by the U.S. today, that list remains blank.

 

I find it hard to believe that your list is blank. For starters, libertarians propose limiting the size, power and expense of government which would solve or alleviate many of the problems Americans are facing today (ex., exploding national debt, the erosion of individual rights and freedom, etc.).
.

 

As a recovering Libertarian, I may not be the audience you have in mind for this thread, but I love PJ O'Rourke's writing. I thought this comment about Libertarian foreign policy amusing.

"After much discussion, however, we conceded that libertarianism is based upon sane rationality and that foreign policy is too full of irrational insane foreigners to allow for a consistent libertarian approach.”

That's one of the major flaws of libertarianism. It's unable, in it's foreign policy, to deal with the world as it is.

 

Millions of people practice libertarian principals every single day. People go on about their lives, they go to work, they come home, and live peacefully among their neighbors without commiting transgressions and using force against them. See how simple that is?

 

Yes, it's easy to make proposals and other abstract suggestions, but when asked for truly workable solutions for the many problems faced by the average Americans, that list is blank. Would you care to be the first to offer a workable solution and then explain how it would be implemented?

Remember, there can be no domino effect that solves one problem, but exacerbates others. That is the system we have now.

 

I won't be the first to offer a practical libertarian solution to one or many problems we face today, but here's a big one for you: reducing the size, power, intrusiveness and expense of the federal government. While the concept of limited, fiscally responsible government might give Big Government neo-socialist statists fits it is one of the concepts our system of government was built on and intended to operate on.

 

That's one of my points of departure with many libertarians, too, Mike. While I agree that we can and should reduce our military footprint overseas, I don't buy the nonsense that we can somehow defend ourselves and our interests by crouching behind our shores in a purely defensive posture. The attacks on 9/11 and Pearl Harbor, as well as the Barbary Wars and the anti-piracy operations off the coasts of Yemen and Somalia should have taught Americans that our oceans cannot defend us and that we have to project force overseas to protect our citizens and commerce. It's bad enough that many on the Left and Right forget history, but it's even worse when they're aware of it but choose to disregard it anyway.

 

Have been reading the guy for 38 years, but don't think that article was his best work. Not particularly funny, kind of trite. I recommend "All the Troubles in the World," "Modern Manners," and getting ahold of boxes of old NatLamps cheap off ebay. Of course it's hard to get a group that contains anarchists and Constitutional constructionists to agree on policy. Of course lots of people vote their personal benefit in the voting booth. But I think O' Rourke overblows the nonleft's self-interestedness in politics and conflates it with simple ignorance. IME, people are simply not politically aware, want to be generally left alone, but the narcosis of mandatory income withholding together with all the hidden nickel and dime taxes keeps them from connecting the dots between what are high costs of legitimate government and the out and out theft/graft of the corrupt status quo.

In short, due to slackness, we end up with the government we deserve, a huge, corrupt, thieving, stupid one. If the US government were a movie character, it would be Luca Brazi.

I realized long ago that it's really the gov-edu-union-MSM complex and the proles they can lie to convincingly and stir up with resentment politics versus the rest of us average folks who just want to be left alone and not be robbed excessively. They win because we pay for the luxurious, light-duty perches in those "unfields" of "unwork" that allow them the time and wherewithal private sector people don't generally have to spew out all the lies they do. Ironically, the "rest of us" pay and pay dearly for the entirety of the leftist propgaganda machine.

 

P.J. O'Rourke is a self-satisfied { VERY self-satisfied } Satarist.Meaning he is
the sit in chair version of Jon Stewart.because O'Rourke stands about
2 inches over 5 foot tall.He's a small man.Or better still person.
Real men don't resort to being frauds.Not even Edgar G. Robinson in
- Little Caesar - {1931} who was a proud and unabashed little thug.
But still not as short as a P.J. O'Rourke.
It's not his fault,he was born into shortness.
However he suffers no shortness of an ability to use wordiness to spread
his form of - Vanity Fair - or - Rolling Stone - bias.
He's No Libertarian.He's also No Gonzo Journalist like Hunter Thompson.
No matter how many words used to express his Gonzoidism.
I too was fooled by this little petty man who like Jon Stewart enjoys
with such delight attacking and making funny at the expense of Americana
and the " Everyman ".Probably has something to do with Not being an
" everyman " but a short man. Better still a short person.I fail to see the
man in this O'Rourke claptrapper.Again ... using the popular device of Satire
to lend the appearance of overall distaste in many venue.Oh is that how it
works.Is that what Makes Jon Stewart so hiliarous.The never ending one-sided
attacks on the character and motives of just one group { Conservatives }.
What percent of Liberals are the butt of Jon Stewarts approach to humor.
Maybe on a good day 1 in 10. On a typical Libertarian day maybe 0-none
and back just to double check.
O'Rourke is as Libertarian as another lefty { Cenk Uygur } masquerading as
such.It's called at best playing both sides { what Glenn Beck has taken up }
and at worst ... being fiendishly sporting in a field of satire,which is no dream.
Real people and real events and real politics made Unclear on purpose.
The better to be Oh so afraid of this Big Bad Satarist and what he might write.
The better to sneak into Grandma's house and steal warm oatmeal
cookies while changing back into his little terrycloth jammies for afternoon nap.
If O'Rourke was any more short on realism and veracity then why did he
say .. Wait Wait ... Don't Tell Me!
As in don't tell me I ain't funny.I ain't Big.I ain't ain't is what I isn't.
Which is how Satire works when yer a Libertarian Gonzo Journalist
who has a Grandma complex and Oatmeal cookie fixation once
removed yet up for adoption.Where on a good day a premium cigar can
easily stand up to the man. I mean,person.
" A conservative is a Liberal who has been mugged ".
P.J. O'Rourke is a person that a mugger would have a hard time seeing.

 

Libertarianism, like any political ideology practiced in america, is not meant to exist in a vacuum or be practiced slavishly. Nothing works when done that way.
There is supposed to be a give and take of sorts, and certainly policies must fit reality rather than ideology. Just as socialists try to push socialism by sneaking it in (and have done a successful job of sneaking it in) libertarians should follow suit. Incrementalism is the name of the game and I don't see it ever touching too much of foreign policy.
If we can simply relax all this entitlement spending, fix the tax code, and balance the damn budget, I'll be pretty satisfied. If we can grab back individual liberties, then so much the better.

 

I don't always agree with O'Rourke, but he's pretty funny, and he seems to have a good grasp of how other people perceive libertarians.

I'm a libertarian socialist myself, which is quite different from the American brand of Libertarianism in terms of economics, but on social issues and foreign policy, I'm in agreement with them.

That being said, even libertarian socialists can agree with ending corporate welfare.

 

-The 9/11 attacks were not foreign based, but hijacked commercial planes. If we had the kind of screening programs we do today the attacks would've been prevented. In fact 9/11 is the greatest argument FOR Non-interventionism, since the Muslim World is rather clear: Stop being Israel's lapdog.

And when you consider the U.S.S Liberty attacks, AIPAC interference in local affairs, refusal to sign major treaties(The Chemical Weapons Resolution) and the NPT as well as Spying/stolen secrets, the "Jewish" State is clearly hostile to the U.S and our interests. Breaking off this engagement will save us a good deal of trouble.

As far as Pearl Harbor, we didn't deploy our air forces. We couldn't, it was a successful sneak attack but it wasn't as though the U.S ignored the Pacific, there was a strong Nationalist document(I forget what it was called) written in the 20th century about the need to fortify our Pacific Frontier and the expected Western Attack.

We just didn't expect it in relative peace times. Nevertheless, a strong and allied Japan basically neutralizes the threat. Japanese re-arming is actually a great thing, for with her alliance it assures that there shall never arise a threat to our Western borders. The two Western Leaders acknowledging their shared need to rule the Pacific.

By the way, much the same exists with our Northern Ally Canada, NATO was one of Eisenhower's smartest plays. Attacking a NATO Country brings the U.S into the war and vice-versa. NATO serves as a stalwart not only against Russia, but against any other non-allied force stupid enough to try. As you can see Talon, since 1948, no Nation has been stupid enough to try.

The pirate wars were simply naked extortions by a far weaker power, Sirs Jefferson and Madison dominated, we won the war and the U.K/France meditated peace.

To assure Perfect Peace, all we really need is two things: A modernized Middle East and the annexation of Mexico. Whose government historically and presently opposes the U.S. Nationalist Mexico is a greater threat than Al-Qaeda. We're at(and have been at) an undeclared state of war with them.

The future of Mexico is to be our Quebec, a developed portion of the Americas hence ending the Mexican Problem while having access to Mexican Oil.

 

I would like to respond to this part of your post, if I may:

The Arab terrorists who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, along with the terrorist group they belonged to, were foreign based. They weren't domestic terrorists. Furthermore, as the aforementioned Barbary Wars reveal, the Muslim world was attacking the U.S. (and the West) long before Israel came into existence. IMO, the last thing America should do is base its foreign policy strategy and tactics on the propaganda of the Muslim world and Islamist terrorists.

As for the argument for non-interventionism, I think the most convincing one is the argument that accounts for the devolution of the old bipolar Cold War global power structure to the new multipolar post-Cold War power structure. In this new geo-strategic environment, the U.S. shouldn't have to play the same role that it did in the post-WWII world when large swaths of the world lay in ruins. Old and new regional powers and alliances should be stepping up to maintain peace, security and stability in their own neighborhoods instead of relying on the United States to expend its own blood and treasure to do it for them.

 

"It’s time for the social conservatives to take a hit for the team."

I say it's time for Mod edit,,flounder,,filterenablers and open border kooks to leave the team.

 

90-95% of "libertarians"....are not.


They're just the same ol' Republican voter who likes to be self-righteous and CLAIM they are libertarian, but once in the voting booth, they vote for the same candidates that pander to the Hawks and Neo-Cons and Religious Right.

And when that Republican sells out the "Libertarian"...do they bolt? Do they go to the Libertarian Party and stay there? Do they refuse to vote Republican?

No.....they do it all over again and hope for scraps from the table or even starve, as Republican politicians don't really cut spending or the size of Government....in fact, may even increase it. Or they pass restrictions on abortion. Or keep funding the Drug War. Or start pre-emptive wars with no end in sight.

And the "Libertarians" come back for more...like a co-dependent abused spouse.


The other 5% are REAL libertarians...who vote Libertarian.

 

Trust me ... Everyone at NPR thinks they're a literal gasbag of hoots.
They just a bunch of whining,skittish trendies who talk about as tough
as Shirley Temple after her very first experience with a cocktail { alcoholic drink }
NPR types have a way of talkin' that just gives me the creeps.
It's the constant and ever-prevailing air of sophisticated superiority as if
whatever they say is just out of this world witty and to die for.
Like before one can even laugh it's already worthy of a TV sitcom.

 

Let me guess...you're a big fan of Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Michael "Savage"???

 

And we have that on the authority of one of the forum "progressives" who presumes to dictate what libertarians and quasi-libertarians are.

Unfortunately, your little screed fails to take into account political alliances and the history of the party that can always count on your vote, Cap'n.

Once upon a time, there existed a Democratic party where men like John F. Kennedy could get nominated for president, but those days are long gone. During the Sixties, the New Left began its Long March through the Democratic party and now neo-socialist "progressives" such as Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren are the party's standard bearers. As I pointed out earlier, this wasn't always the case, and the riots at the DNC in Chicago in 1968 are proof of this. The same thing is going on in the GOP today, and as was the case with the Democratic party, change doesn't occur overnight.

I hate to break the news to you, Cap'n, but progs don't dictate to libertarians and quasi-libertarians what they are, what they aren't and how they think they should and can best achieve their ideological and political objectives. If you want to rant about ideological and political purity, go rave at your fellow Leftists and Democrats. You've got too many impure Blue Dogs loose in your tent.

 

Some of NPR is pretentious, but O'Rourke is usually pretty laid back.

 

Let me guess...you're a big fan of uber-partisan "progressive" snobs like Steve Inskeep, eh Cap'n?

 

Why won't you let HIM answer the question??? BTW, nope...never listen to Inskeep.

 

Oh, my - I wonder how is Gorn going to go about essentializing you, Serfin'?

Popcorn anyone?

 

Notice what you did? You spent nearly your entire post going after Democrats...not refuting my point. You're no "libertarian"...you're just a partisan Republican.

Because you can't....the MATH alone proves I'm right.

Where are all these "libertarians" come Election Day??? Voting for the Libertarian Party? No....just a handful do that. The REAL libertarians.

The rest are just self-righteous REPUBLICAN VOTERS...who vote for the same guys pandering to the definitely NON-libertarian Neo-Cons, Hawks, and Religious Right.

They're sell-outs....who fancy themselves "independent thinkers, not in lock-step with that conservative ideology, but against ALL forms of oppression and over-reaching foreign policy".....but still vote with the "Focus on the Family" crowd, the Rick Santorums, and the Bill Kristols.

 

They could've been based off the Moon for all I care, did they use Arabic territories to launch the attack? No. Did they use Arabic Technology? No! They used U.S Commercial Flights! The 9/11 attacks(like the Boston Marathon) isn't an argument against Non-interventionism. It's a PRO-neutral argument. It's a pro-protectionist argument.

Arguing otherwise is a misconception of what took place. It was Bush's false narrative that 'we had to fight them over there to keep them from coming here.' But 2010 Towns Square put that on its face, didn't it?

Likewise, our neutrality didn't bring us to WWII, it was Roosevelt's retarded notion that he could place sanctions on Japan and still somehow maintain peace? LOL.
And if we weren't a part of the former Central Powers that won WWI, Hitler's Germany would've declared war on us for Lend-Lease.

It's just German apprehension that keeps us from an earlier war date. And can you imagine Roosevelt's legacy if we had lost?

Overall, it's not "Muslim Propaganda" that causes my geopolitical disdain for everything Israel. I hate how we're her security blanket through the U.N. I hate how she flounders the law and we're supposed to take it. And above all, I hate how she uses us.

This so-called "great friend" has not stabilized the M.E but spreads the flames of war. She's a Religious Theocracy no different than the other M.E Countries.
Indeed, she's a turd like all of the other turds. She just happens to be our "turd".

I agree in general, that we need to shape the world towards an era of self-protection, however the problem being their relative inability to do so. The Arab League hasn't so much as made a dent in World History. I'm thankful that the Saudis wanted to fund the Egyptians, allowing us the flexibility to cancel aid but do we want a M.E governed by the Saudis?

In essence, these lands and peoples are politically deficient, this deficiency is what allows these terrorist groups to rise. It stems from Europe's failure to cultivate the region.