Skip to main content

Ruby Ridge or Reefer Madness: Choices, choices

Ever since The Economist ran its dismissive piece about Bob Barr's presidential candidacy I have been mulling over precisely where I fit in to the Libertarian Party.

Here are my choices:

The party is also badly divided between what might be called its Ruby Ridge wing and its Reefer Madness wing. The Ruby Ridge wing, which has still not recovered from the terrible day when the FBI shot several survivalists at Ruby Ridge in Idaho, believes that freedom comes from the barrel of a gun. The Reefer Madness wing is more interested in keeping the government's hands off its spliffs.


I don't think that I quite belong in the Ruby Ridge wing. I read a lot of survivalist SF novels for entertainment, but my wife won't let me stockpile food and second-chance vests in the basement no matter how eloquently I explain that the breakdown of society is at most a few years off--maybe months if Barack Obama is elected President. Besides, I frankly fear IRS agents with calculators and blackberries more than I tremble at the thought of black helicopters and the FBI Hostage Elimination Teams.

As for the Reefer Madness wing (excuse me, deep sucking breath), while I have to fess up that it is probably reasonably representative of the first two years of college that I only vaguely remember, I'd like to point out two mitigating circumstances. First, the statute of limitations for almost everything should have expired, except possibly for that cow homicide. Second, I am now a responsible father, so of course none of that ever happened. When Officer Fiendly teaches the DARE class at school, I smile tightly and say nothing.

(About the cow homicide: even if the statute hasn't run out, it's too bizarre not to tell. I went to college in southern North Carolina and had friends who were druggies and gun nuts. Once I accompanied them on a weapons-purchasing trip to fabled Fayette-nam. One individual, whom I shall not name because he might actually read this and hunt me down if I did, purchased a weapon that would today be considered a banned assault weapon. We were driving back to campus through an agricultural area, when he screamed at us to stop the car. We figured he needed to take a piss. He leaped out of the vehicle and strode quickly over to the fence that separated us from a herd of grazing cows, carrying his new toy. Before anyone could so much as munch a Dorito, he raised the weapon and fired into the body of a cow, which collapsed instantly. "Yee-hah," he shouted, "I always wondered if that would work. We better get out of here!")

I think the problem for The Economist is that on the other side of the pond their binoculars can't make out queers.

I belong to what Becky might call the gun-toting pro-lesbian wing of the Libertarian Party:

A couple years ago I was trying to convince some converts to the Party. They were Idaho panhandle conservatives and were none too keen on any of this gay marriage type stuff. I explained to them that libertarianism meant there would be naked pot smoking lesbians frolicking on the shores of Lake Coeur d'Alene , but they would also be able to keep their Uzis and semi-automatics.

The guys thought they could get down with that.


The major problem with most Libertarians--at least those who go to conventions and write blogs--is they haven't got a damn sense of humor. At least not about themselves. Wit and I use the term advisedly, is generally reserved for slashing comments at other people who happen to disagree with them over the finer points of anarchism or minarchism. Anybody who actually uses minarchism correctly in a sentence is not somebody I want to watch naked lesbians with.

I bet we could get more than 400,000 people to vote for us if we dropped the Reason Magazine/Cato Institute happy Stepford neo-con approach and tired the outcast route to unify all gun-toting, tattooed, plaid-shirt lesbian, no-helmet, pot-smoking folks who have never really bothered to vote because there's nobody out there representing them.

And no, licking the whipped cream off a stripper's tits doesn't make Bob Barr a member of the club.

Comments

Anonymous said…
A moderate voice of reason...it is exactly what we need to counteract this political gotcha game. That game keeps people occupied while the national treasure is depeleted and sold off. Aye-yi-yi.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...