A Bunch of Libertarian Retards Now Addicted to Hopium

John Sidney McCain III is a man of many stereotypes. He is a military brat/frat boy asshole, a salty old sailor with a filthy mouth, and a doddering old man. Today we may add to that list "friendless wonder." Like the kid at lunch who sits by himself, eating his weird lunch and reading his weird manga, McCain has no friends. The only people truly endorsing him are party hacks or former political figures no one gives a shit about while Obama grabs them like they were hamburgers and he were some sort of burglar of hamburgers, if such a thing should or could exist.

Some of the more recent of these endorsements come from the libertarian edge of the political spectrum, an edge I tend to respect for at least having the balls to admit that they'd relish in seeing the poor used as a food substance, and the ideology tied with anarchism for having the most amount of supposed adherents that consistently support and vote for policies entirely opposite to their proclaimed interests. Not all libertarians are retards, and in fact I would argue that the majority of academic libertarians are quite smart, if not cold, cartoonishly villainous human beings who would watch the world burn if it meant nobody put any tariffs on anything. Our own contributor spike is one of these people, and she has earned my intellectual respect, as well as my moral contempt.

Even so, shit-headed groups like College Republicans tend to latch on to the word "libertarian" like asshole Democrats latch on to the word "progressive," and they pop boners for the more conservative leanings of publications like Reason and The Economist. (Note: Whether the Economist is really libertarian or not is debatable, but I would argue that it is the standard-bearer for libertarian policy among American libertarian academics) Well, guess what? Reason just released a list of a whole bunch of libertarians endorsing Obama (plus a bunch of retards talking about Bob Barr and one guy who apparently actually likes Palin.) The list is chock full of marginalized ideologues and dumb-ass celebrities (Drew Carey? Doug Stanhope!? I'm surprised Penn Jillette's discussion wasn't sloppily edited out of context, and then followed by Penn making a fart noise and saying "Well FUUUCK YOOOOUUU.")

Some highlights from this list include from author and guy I think it would be unsettling to be around Steven Pinker:

Who are you voting for in November? Barack Obama, because he most exemplifies Reason and Free Minds (sorry, the country is in no mood for Freer Markets). The contrast between his discernment and eclecticism and the Republican ticket’s impulsiveness and idiot populism is vastly more important than any differences in their adherence to libertarian first principles.

Intolerable person Tim Slagle:

Leaving George W. Bush out of consideration, what former U.S. president would you most like to have waterboarded? Franklin Roosevelt. You wouldn't even have to board him, just tilt his chair back into one of the reflecting pools he built. And keep repeating it, until he ADMITS he was a Communist.

And from Cathy Young:

Who are you voting for in November? I can't in good conscience give my sanction to either of the two major-party candidates: McCain/Palin represent a GOP in thrall to troglodytes, while Obama will likely preside over an even bigger expansion of government than McCain would have. I think an Obama victory would be the lesser of two evils overall, but I will probably vote for Bob Barr.

Who did you vote for in 2004 and 2000? In 2004: Michael Badnarik. In 2000: Bush.

Interesting.

Well, what about The Economist, a supposedly legitimate and, from what I hear, even of-quality magazine? Well, it turns out they went ahead and endorsed Obama earlier today, but with caveats that they understand that his "worrying" policies "protectionism" and "unions" (I guess they don't like that he believes they should exist, I don't recall any Obama rhetoric regarding unions other than a vague and benign general attitude.)

Why is this really relevant, though? With the concerns for civil liberties and staunch anti-war stances, wouldn't the more libertarian-identifying media (if not their readers) consistently vote in favor of people like Obama? Why am I even talking about this?

I'll tell you why: I'm a gigantic fan of irony, and the conservative movement for the last 25 years has apparently run exclusively on a platform of irony. The policies of Reagan and Bush(es) have made the government vastly bigger and sunk our national debt to unheard of levels, they embroiled us in incredibly costly foreign policy, and contributed to the most ridiculously transparent subsidy program in existence, the military-industrial complex. But still, the neoconservative movement is still often blindly followed by the Free Market-oriented media. The Economist endorsed W in 2000, and Reagan twice. A good 35-40% of the libertarians interviewed in the Reason article voted for Bush. Some voted for him twice, a tacit approval of the Iraq War, while the Economist actually actively supported it. And while The Economist endorsed Kerry in '04, they only did so "with a heavy heart."

That's why I'm laughing right now, laughing with a bilious hate in the bottom of my stomach and an exhausted, furious nausea. Economic policy is the foot that people like Reagan and Bush jammed into the door to get elected, and fear due to terribly implemented foreign policy is the way they stayed there. The economic right fell for it again and again, until the worst eight years in government incompetence have finally gotten it into their heads that when men like Bush "govern least," it is disastrous. I'm not so naive as to think that this will bring about the end of voting-for-tax-cuts, but maybe it'll make people think that there are other things to fucking consider in a fucking candidate besides how much they'll tax people or regulate the economy, both the Democrats and Republicans are capitalists and the difference between their fiscal policy is fucking negligible. The chickens of this retarded way of thinking have come home to roost, and they are now shitting up the god damn place.

This was actually meant to be a well-reasoned argument about the folly of voting for fiscal conservatism while ignoring social liberty when the candidates that are supposedly fiscally conservative are the exact opposite, but now I am too angry and I'm just going to end this before I literally murder a person.

*fart noise*

FUUUUUCK YOOOUUUU