I do think the government needs to do stuff

Recently, a number of people have written to me asking my opinion of the Libertarian Party in general and their nominee Bob Barr in particular.

Which I think is interesting. If the tone of the questions is right, I suspect these are, very generally, the same people who were asking me what I thought about Ron Paul last year.

There are a few different answers to that. I actually think this will have to be two posts. First, I'll give you my general impression, and second, I'll actually dissect the Libertarian platform.

There's a lot to like about their platform. Unfortunately, there's more to hate.

Basically, Libertarianism is a philosophy that holds that the government should do almost nothing. It should defend the borders, and then just let people and corporations do whatever the hell they want.

I suppose, for me, the question of whether the government should do nothing and just trust corporations and the "market" to fix everything, as the country unravels and people starve, should have been decisively resolved in 1932, when Franklin Roosevelt, who wanted to help people, resoundingly defeated Herbert Hoover, who didn't. And I think it mostly was resolved then, which is why right-wing attempts to do away with things like social security have gone absolutely nowhere in the 75 years since.

And which is also why the Libertarian Party is never a factor in our elections, and I kind of doubt it will be this time.

I'm all for the stuff Libertarians believe about things like abortion and homosexuality, which their platform declares are nobody's damn business the individual's.

I have to say, though, the vast majority of self-described "libertarians" I've met haven't actually been members of the Libertarian Party. Mostly they seem to vote Republican.

They pay lip service to things like abortion and gay rights, then they vote for fascists and religious zealots because those people promise to give them low taxes and unfettered access to guns. Which strikes me as, well, contemptibly selfish.

And I actually think Bob Barr underlines that point.

Barr introduced the Defense of Marriage Act, a pointless act of gay bashing, in 1996, and still defends the law. (Not to mention the "Barr amendment" against medical marijuana.) He also was the House impeachment manager in 1998 when the Republicans were trying to turn a blow job into fucking Watergate, and he still defends that, too.

Basically, Barr undermines anything I might like about libertarianism, and is apparently the nominee mostly because of his adherence to the parts I don't like (government that never, ever helps people and lets corporations run roughshod over the public).

I mean, okay, he opposes telecom immunity. Good for him. Maybe if that were the only issue in the world I might find that, by itself, an argument for his candidacy. Sadly, there are others.