“Libertarianism” Explained

September 23, 2008

A friend of mine was complaining about some assmonger “libertarian” motherfucker whose comment on a blog was chapping her ass. I explained to her that dumbfuck incoherent “libertarian” douchewackers do tend, with their abject stupidity and patent hypocrisy, to chap the old ass.

I like to challenge them to build their own fucking roads, stop using grossly government-subsidized gasoline, stop letting firemen put out their burning houses, stop calling the police when they are burglarized or otherwise become the victim of crimes, stop flying on planes that use air traffic control, etc, etc, etc.

Basically, “libertarianism” is just code for “the government should subsidize and support *my* shit, but anyone who wants the government to subsidize and support *their* shit should just fuck right off“. Fucking selfish deluded hypocritical pigs is all libertarians are.

17 Responses to ““Libertarianism” Explained”

  1. Ouyang Dan Says:

    *ding ding ding*

    We have a winner!

    Johnny, hell him what he’s won!

  2. Robin Says:

    I was Googling for a quote I vaguely remembered about Libertarians and I found a better one: “A Libertarian is a Republican with no sense of ethics.”

  3. Hahaha! The only Libertarians I know are really Republicans, but are ashamed of that label and party right now.

  4. whoever Says:

    Libertarians of the “Ayn Rand” type are – “I’ve got mine – screw you”

  5. “A Libertarian is a Republican with no sense of ethics…”

    … and an even looser grasp on objective reality.

  6. apalazzo Says:

    Libertarianism relies on the fact that some people never outgrow adolescence.

  7. Marksman2000 Says:

    Sure. Why not let the government play an even bigger role in our everyday lives? After all, bureaucrats have done a great job thus far…

    War on Poverty
    War on Terror
    War on Drugs

    Ummm-ummm. Gimme more!

  8. Lemur Says:

    I think Libertarians, right up there with fundies and MRAs, went to Fuck Logic University and majored in Missing The Point, with a minor in Total Douchebaggery.

    …Well hey, at least they can say they use their degrees every day!

  9. Robin Says:

    Uh huh. Poverty, terrorism, drugs and especially hurricanes all get better the less we do about them.

  10. bikemonkey Says:

    WTA ftw!!!!

    It is amazing how many fucking lifelong Repubs are dodging and weaving trying to qualify how they don’t really believe in the current Repub values. Fucking liars….you voted for those douchehounds now sack up and take some responsibility for your actions. that’s the republican way, isn’t it?

  11. […] PhysioProf: ¬† Libertarianism Explained. […]

  12. Melinda Says:

    Amen! That’s one of my favorite anti-libertarian arguments. Glad to know I’m not alone.

    I once got into a bit of a tiff with a friend and his wife, both self-professed libertarians opposed to “their money” going to fund other people’s children’s educations, when I pointed out that he was attending a state university for his master’s degree and had attended one for his bachelor’s. I love how principle flies out the window when it comes to getting yours.

  13. Libertarian: A republican who likes to smoke pot and fuck.

  14. Luddhunter Says:

    Talk about not outgrowing adolescence.

    Statists (mostly Democrats) get elected and pass wealth transfer laws based on the Robin Hood fanstasy of taking from the rich and giving to the poor. That’s worked out pretty well for the inner cities and for this current financial crisis, don’t you think? Most of the poor are poor by having bad habits, and handing them unearned cash does not incentivize them to change those habits.

    Moralists (mostly Republicans) get elected by no outgrowing their natural fears…demonizing other cultures, demonizing drugs, and whipping up alarm, then grow the defense budget and drug interdiction forces and imperialize the world, storm houses, arrest 800,000 low level pot possessors a year, draining the treasury and creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of the “they hate us” argument.

    The two main parties advocate policies that get in the way of economic growth and endanger us by making foreigners hate us more, and making inner city folks into criminals for dealing dope all the while incentivizing them in the first place to earn underground to keep the welfare checks coming in.

    That’s why I’m a fiscal and social libertarian. I agree with taxes to fund emergency services and public services and national defense (not offense), but not to fund punitive imperialism and the welfare state and socialized health care and housing.

    So who are the real douchebags? I say the statists and moralists who are wasting money by the trillions and setting people at each others throats with the hypocritical Drug War and the Global War on People Who Don’t Like Us and Might Attack Us.

  15. Stephanie Z Says:

    Luddhunter, I find it terribly amusing that you Libertarians are trying to spin the current financial crisis as a failure of the concept of active government. The U.S. government, in the form of the FHA, has done a fine job of increasing home ownership among “undesirable” borrowers for a very long time. It’s been so successful that it’s one of the government agencies that pays for itself. For the hard of understanding like yourself, that means that the vast majority of those borrowers paid off their FHA loans.

    It was private industry that couldn’t make a go of the project. It was your philosopy that failed, no matter how many blogs you show up on to claim otherwise. Everyone sees that. Everyone knows you’re wrong, and trying to justify yourself by calling names won’t change it.

    And “incentivize” is not a word. You could try “motivate,” but it won’t make you less wrong.

  16. Luddhunter Says:


    I love your euphemism “active government” for egalitarian Robin Hood schemes like FHA. As if libertarians advocate completely inactive government (anarchy).

    So what if borrowers mostly pay back FHA loans? They are still using taxpayer funds to front a loan for people who can’t get them on their own, which, by progressive tax policy is a Robin Hood transfer which punishes the successful to give to the not-yet-successful, betting that they will pay it back over time.

    But as we have seen, government loan guarantees by GSE’s like Fannie/Freddie lacked risk management because statists who created the GSE’s were and are ideoologically predisposed to sabotage the oversight in order to set up a rescue by nationalization. Private banks made a “go” of the situation by acting as designed by flipping bad loans over to GSE’s, because that created profit and shareholder value. The fault lies with government in the first place for creating Robin Hood agencies, and in the second place for preventing oversight of those agencies, and in the 3rd place for solving the problem they caused by seizing control of a huge % of the banking industry in a socialist coup.

    Bottom line: Egalitarian policies are cover for the real agenda of the left: create market distortions to force economic instability and then pretend to ride in a nd save everyone from capitalism and impose de facto government control of all major industries. Next on the nationalization agenda: Health Care. Try and deny that.

    PS. Incentivize is word. Look it up in Webster. Typical Ludd, sanctimoniously declare yourself right without checking readily available objective sources.

  17. Stephanie Z Says:

    Ludd (since we’re on a nickname basis), you know that Robin Hood was the anti-tax guy, don’t you, fighting Prince John, who was paying for Richard’s war? No, wait. You probably don’t. You probably think he’s a fox.

    It is nice of you to recognize that egalitarian policies are nothing to be ashamed of, though. Otherwise, why would there have to be something sinister behind them? But you know what? We liberals don’t need to have a cover story. Our goals are perfectly palatable to the vast majority. WYSIWYG.

    And if the government can provide health care more efficiently to more people, as comparisons to other countries demonstrate, why should that be a problem? Aren’t those the great capitalist criteria for determining which organization wins the business?

    So, by Webster’s, did you mean my 2,700-page reference dictionary that I use when doing copy editing? Because incentivize isn’t in there. Typical Libertarian, assuming that something he found on the internet is more valid than what the experts are saying.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: