Lately, I've heard more people (men, mostly) proclaim themselves "libertarian." My gut feeling tells me that most of these new "converts" aren't really libertarian, or that they don't understand what libertarianism is and that they are really just angry at how far off the rails the Republican Party -- their natural habitat -- has drifted under the Moron in Chief. They are doing this to psychologically remove themselves from the mess they created by voting for Bush and for, until a year or so ago, blindly voting a straight GOP Party ticket for as far back as they can remember. These "libertarians" are Republicans without the guilt by association or, rather, without the remorse.

By comparison to the utter ineptitude and willful stupidity of the Bush Regime, "libertarianism" sounds smart and sexy, ruggedly individualistic and hardboiled. Famous libertarians include such hardboiled legumes as Ayn Rand, Grover Norquist and Pat Buchanan. "Famous" and "libertarian" don't live in the same sentence for good reasons. It is a philosophy meant for a fantasy world, a world with, say, 300,000 people in it, tops. At the moment, the U.S. is home to 300 million people, and the planet is teetering under the weight and environmental demands of 7 billion people and both totals are rising daily as the ice caps melt away available land. Libertarianism is an intellectual luxury that a lot of angry Republicans are affording themselves.

What exactly is it about libertarianism that lapsed Republicans find so appealing? After all, libertarianism at its purest is a fairly radical philosophy. Among the beliefs, straight from their official documents: "People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others." "Repeal all laws that presume government knows better than the individual how to run that person's life." "Encourage private sector dissemination of information to help consumers make informed decisions on products and services." "We oppose all taxation." "An armed citizenry is essential to a free society." And so on.

I'm always being told that libertarians have a lot of "common ground" with "liberals." And this may be true, on paper. They are against coerced military service, government spying on citizens, discrimination against gays, and they are for reproductive rights, the inviolable right to free speech and dissent, strict separation of church and state. These are good things, to be sure.

And yet, to libertarians "common ground" is a foreign concept. They don't think any thing should be "commonly" owned, the "common good" is not worth preserving. To libertarians, government is evil. It should not regulate anything: drugs, food, pollution, guns, drugs. Conversely, everything should be privatized and deregulated. And, while few libertarian candidates are ever elected to office, their ideas have infiltrated government policy, during the Reagan years, which turned out disastrously.

To a libertarian, a person is his own free agent. If they were allowed to live by their credo they would have to agree that any person, including their neighbor, can have as many guns and weapons systems as they want and they can shoot them off when they like, as long as they don't kill your pet dog or children. Libertarians are opposed to all zoning laws. A libertarian believes that if he bought the lot next to your house, he could erect a convenience store, skyscraper, munitions plant or gas station there.

One thing I've noticed about these faux libertarians: I've yet to meet one who'd turn down an unemployment check or a Social Security payment. I've yet to see a libertarian pick up his own trash, repave the potholes on his street, reject FEMA funds when his beach home is washed out to sea, etc. It's amazing how quickly the libertarian strain disappears when those professing it lose their jobs or get sick without insurance.

_______

