Ampersand:

>

hat tip Babak!

Category: Humor

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

112 Responses to “24 Types of Libertarians”

  1. Arturo says:

    That’s great — Very funny shit man.

    Are you transitioning from an economics to a comedy blog?

  2. Patrick Neid says:

    the fear of Libertarians continues….

  3. call me ahab says:

    Gunner Joe Says-

    There are only two kinds of people in the world: Gun Owners and Sheep! And sheep aren’t really people.

    lol

    where are you on this list BR- Atlas?

  4. My preference is for pragmatism and data-driven decision making.

    I am not a fan of any of the “ISMs” nor do I find any one ideology (or political party) reflects my belief system.

    I find most ideologies are attempt to thwart the will of the populace, typically by slavish devotion to an (often outmoded) idea.

  5. HEHEHE says:

    Certainly there’s a certain level of unrealistic positions in some areas of Libertarianism. However, these lame attempts at demagoguery come out of the woodwork every time the status quo party (i.e. the Democrats/Republican party combined) comes under threat due to their own incompetence and greed.

    Unneccessary endless wars; wastes of money like the war on drugs and the resulting private prison system; unsustainable government sponsored ponzi schemes like social security etc., failure to break up TBTF companies, are all things that need to be addressed in this country. I commend Libertarians for bringing them up for discussion when nobody in the staus quo will.

    Even most Libertarians would agree that government still needs to serve a regulatory role. The problem in our country is that all too often government regulation and the regulatory arms of government have been captured by the very industries whom they are to regulate. Consequently regulations are written not to protect the citizenry or provide a level playing field for fair competition amongst competitors but to assure continued market dominance by current market leaders.

    Essentially the Republican/Democrat party is the party of the people from Joe Six Pack was supposed to be protected.

  6. cdosquared5 says:

    Strawmen won’t fill the hole in your heart, Barry. And neither will those meatball heroes you love.

  7. MorticiaA says:

    How about this one — the Sponge-Bobber. “Those 10 out of every 100 people who don’t have jobs just need to stop sponging off of me, get off the couch and get a job. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps already.”

    The Republican Party stopped representing me a long time ago (around 2000), and the Democratic Party never held any appeal whatsoever. The Libertarian Party has such an incredible opportunity at this moment in history to make strides in acceptance; instead, it turns me — and others like me — with the Kool-Aid drinking mentality that the “followers” seem to cling to. I don’t see any more think-for-yourself and apply common sense thinking than any other party. Shame, really, because this country desperately needs a viable third choice.

    I’ll remain an Independent. Fortunately for me I live in a state with open primaries so I don’t have to pick a side during primary season.

  8. joro says:

    I’m a Liberterian and I found it very humorous for two reasons: Most of it was so exaggerated it made me laugh and a few fit a few people I know who claim they are Liberterian perfectly.

  9. constantnormal says:

    Thanks Barry. You are sure to offend some folks, and they almost certainly needed it.

    This was brilliant, and I would not have seen it if not for your posting it. It made me smile.

  10. Thor says:

    Hah – BR this was great – For those of you getting your panties in a bunch – if you can’t laugh at yourselves you probably shouldn’t be taken seriously in the first place.

  11. AHodge says:

    I a privacy and smaller govt libertarian.
    Meaning 3/4 the size
    run right
    and paid for with taxes.

    leave me alone a perfectly honorable sentiment, But Rs recently convinced most tea partiers they need NO govt at all except maybe army. R’s, the republican officials, Rush and the media, have run their campaigns, and the govt, for decade more PURELY on the PR of protecting us from that govt over there.

    and cut taxes. Say to zero? why not? the govt worthless, right?

    So when large swaths of the tea partiers actually believe this decade long campaign, the Rs have a rebellion on their hands. I scornfully point out to my planet R operatives, totally serves them right.

    They do have a point about the 100% bank bondholder F/F bailout which will cost us say $1.5 trillion. That better used for programs or tax cuts, depending on which planet, R or D, you are on?

  12. EAR says:

    Love it.

    There’s Libertarianism and there’s “Hey! Look at ME! I’m a Libertarian!” Libertarianism which is a haven for complainers. If you constantly harp on reality and suggest it can be remedied using policies or dogma that can’t be applied in reality, you’re a complainer. You add nothing of value but your own 2 cents which is worth less and less everyday. Par for the course in the era of Self Aggrandizement.

    HEHEHE said…

    “Unneccessary endless wars; wastes of money like the war on drugs and the resulting private prison system; unsustainable government sponsored ponzi schemes like social security etc., failure to break up TBTF companies, are all things that need to be addressed in this country. I commend Libertarians for bringing them up for discussion when nobody in the staus quo will.”

    Many people of all kinds of shapes, sizes and affiliations have these views. Plenty. How novel and myopic to attribute them to a political group. They “Get it” and others don’t, right?

    Government is a big, clumsy, sloppy mess because it is destined to be as long as homo sapiens occupy it and run it. Power, fame or fortune change the chemistry of the brain, and no one, no matter what -ism they stamp on their forehead, is immune.

  13. Bokolis says:

    I fashion meself a biker / outlaw – railing against speed limits and seatbelt / helmet laws.

    HEHEHE’s got it covered…since money effectively dictates the nature of legislation, more of it necessarily increases the oppression level on the general populace.

    ~~~

    BR: I too am against helmet laws, but that’s only because I am in favor of organ transplants . . .

  14. Machiavelli999 says:

    The thing is libertarianism is so appealing for 2 reasons. Its simple and it flatters you by making you think that you are the best. I mean if nothing else, Atlas Shrugged is very inspiring.

    Unfortunately, it doesn’t work.

  15. cdosquared5 says:

    Because the “will of the populace” reflects “pragmatism and data-driven decision making”?

  16. plato363 says:

    BR

    Good point. I would note as a libertarian leaning person, I find the comic pretty funny and I am glad to see it. As it means that libertarian thinking is making its way into main stream thought. And that has the progressives/repubebics on the defensive. I think most libertarians are pragmatists and they (we) believe in the line ” I don’t believe in ISMs, I just believe me”.

  17. Machiavelli999 says:

    I especially like “The Island” example. Describes 95% of the Tea Partiers.

  18. HEHEHE says:

    “Love it.

    There’s Libertarianism and there’s “Hey! Look at ME! I’m a Libertarian!” Libertarianism which is a haven for complainers. If you constantly harp on reality and suggest it can be remedied using policies or dogma that can’t be applied in reality, you’re a complainer. You add nothing of value but your own 2 cents which is worth less and less everyday. Par for the course in the era of Self Aggrandizement.”

    Umm, what part of anything I said can’t be applied in reality. Legalization of drugs has occured many places. Leaving unwinnable wars since the beginning of history. Restructuring social security for means testing and raising the retirement age is anything but “untenable”. Typical knee-jerk dismissive statements by people who think “ooooh things are a certain way so they must be beyond the scope of correcting and too complicated for somebody to figure out”. I’ve studied the classics, I’ve my business degree and JD, so please spare me your idiotic comments.

  19. Thor says:

    Oh really BR? There are quite a few here who accuse you of being a closet liberal ;-) Granted, anything that doesn’t agree with their particular narrow point of view is often considered “liberal BS” but we all know that’s just this era’s particular Red Scare nonsense accusation.

  20. I view the Left as inept and economically clueless

    I see the Right as married to intellectually bankrupt ideologies.

    Not sure where that leaves me, but it ain’t a Democrat or a Republican, and the Liberal/Conservative schism is insufficiently nuanced to properly identify my views.

  21. Thor says:

    Haha – I don’t know what is more amusing to watch debates here devolve into – partisan bickering or the “my brain is bigger than your brain” pissing contests.

  22. DL says:

    BR @ 1:29

    Very diplomatic.

    But it leaves one wondering which ideologies (of the Right) are deemed to be “intellectually bankrupt”.

  23. Arequipa01 says:

    Me- I’m a Fabian S0ci@list (although I’ll never understand why Fabian got involved din developing sociopolitical ideology).

    Such a nice boy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_%28entertainer%29

  24. MinnItMan says:

    Everybody in the world is stupid, except me. (Homer Simpson)

    I have strong libertarian sympathies, yet libertarianism’s anti-political essence is pretty useless. Anti-political in sense that we just need rules and then we can leave things alone because the rules’ application (and non-need of revision) is so terribly obvious.

    As for the topic of the decade – the financial crisis, libertarians kinda fell down. If you love liberty, then there is a need for [effective] regulation and enforcement, if only to prevent evermore regulation and enforcement. Ah, but that would take political skill and data-driven decision-making that isn’t pre-determined. Libertarians may be right about ineffective regulation and enforcement, but they never seem to be able to do anything about it.

    I write this on the roof of a rent-controlled apartment in San Francisco. There all sorts of ways to define property rights, and being well-aware of the downsides, this isn’t the worst way I have seen. In fact, it’s quite pleasant today.

  25. Mannwich says:

    So true, Barry, which of course means you’re a “commie pinko liberal” for pointing it out (the truth).

  26. Mannwich says:

    Or, excuse me, for posting it.

  27. kilowatt says:

    Please do tell us, which of the 24 types was Jefferson or John Locke? Which category of shallow idiot does Menger, Bastiat, Mises, Hayek, Hoppe, Say or Nock belong?

    Such funnies can only amuse those who are woefully ignorant of the economics of liberty.

  28. Andy T says:

    What’s funny about this in the comments section is how the Libertarian-bashers are jumping out and telling the Libertarians “not to get their panties” in a wad, etc, etc…

    But, what’s notable is that lack of Libertarians who even give a crap about BR’s comment-baiting hit jobs anymore.

    Long live the STATE baby!!! More regulations would solve everything…they just need to be “smarter regulations” and “smarter regulators.”

  29. BTW, I favor legalization of Drugs — because the costs of keeping them illegal out weight the benefits. Tax ‘em, set up treatment centers, cheaper than jail.

    On the other hand, I think that online gambling is a surefire way to bankrupt10% of the population that has broadband access. So I am paternalistically against that.

    I favor gun ownership, but also believe Cities have the right to legislate against hand gun usage.

  30. Mannwich says:

    There are MANY comics out about “the state” that are just as funny (it not more so), Andy T. Can you not laugh at yourselves as well?

  31. Rescission says:

    After yesterday’s praise of the Socialist lecture and today’s smear of Libertarians, I am waiting for tomorrow’s ridicule of Collectivists?

    While I am not a Libertarian, after reading more and more of what they believe, some of it I find intellectually sound and refreshing. John Mackey, founder and CEO of Whole Foods, and Libertarian says they have done a very crappy job of marketing their ideas. I agree. Rand Paul, a new, fresh face from the private sector with libertarian ideas has been disowned by the Libertarians because he’s not 100% on every issue. This just isn’t pragmatic and is pretty stupid. Conservatives/Republicans don’t get the joke of monopolies and prop up companies that are just too big and monopolistic. Democrats do the same thing with their regulations.

    Regulations should be filtered differently. Rather than just trying to fix abuses, they should first and foremost be put in place to enhance more competition and to ensure more competitors come in and to “frustrate” companies that get too monopolistic. Instead its the reverse. Big companies are very inefficient by nature and most problems can be solved by the private sector and more competition, if we would only unleash them. More regulations stifles this in many cases.

    ~~~

    BR: What goes up on the blog is a fairly random collection of whatever catches my eye and tickles my funny bone at the moment . . . statistically, running a video *(that i did not agree with) form a British Marxist followed the next day by a comic mocking Libertarians is well within the statistical number of heads in a row of a coin toss…

  32. fromthedeepersouth says:

    Barry, you may prefer pragmatism and data-driven decision-making, but we all have to start from some philosophical base. In my own case, I think the libertarians are closest to the best structure for a democratic/capitalistic society. The belief is that power and therefore decisions should come from the bottom and percolate upwards. Contrary to the opinions of many, it is not anarchist, but compels people to work together locally, instead of being told what to do from above. I too would like to see decisions drive by data, but I”m convinced that that too will best occur under a libertarian-dominated society. Right now, decisions are based on politics, and the more powerful (wealthy) an entity (individual, corporation or special interest group) is, the more they can influence decisions. Take the BP disaster, the regulatory agencies were systematically emasculated by big oil special interests since Ronald Regean (when the oilman himself George HW Bush was VP). If the people who are being affected by this disaster had more say in regulations put out by congress, I think there would have been a much stronger chance this would have been avoided.

  33. vonmises2012 says:

    Mannwich don’t worry Socialism can be done better too. We just need more modern enlightened leaders.

  34. call me ahab says:

    I too am against helmet laws, but that’s only because I am in favor of organ transplants . . .

    lol

    BR- sometimes you crack me up

  35. Mannwich says:

    @from: But in the “real world” things have almost NEVER happened that way (“bottom up” decisions). You’re merely longing for something that only existed in your head. Once human beings and their collective entities gain a modicum of power, they do EVERYTHING to keep that power for as long as they can, even if that means disowning real libertarian acts that they had previously supported. You long for a fantasy land that will never exist among humans.

  36. JET55118 says:

    BR – Define ideology. What do you mean by that?

  37. fromthedeepersouth says:

    Rescission, you are right, libertarians have done a horrible job of selling themselves. I find that what the vast majority do is criticize decisions of others. It would be far more construction to explain how a libertarian approach would cause situations to be different from what they are.

  38. fromthedeepersouth says:

    Barry, by the way, libertarianism is giving power back to the people, it is the exact opposite of thwarting their will. All other approaches take power away from the people and thus thwart their will.

    ~~~

    BR: You mean like Rand Paul’s Libertarian argument against the Civil Rights Act?

  39. grlampton says:

    My preference is for pragmatism and data-driven decision making.
    I am not a fan of any of the “ISMs” nor do I find any one ideology (or political party) reflects my belief system.
    I find most ideologies are attempt to thwart the will of the populace, typically by slavish devotion to an (often outmoded) idea.

    * * *
    I view the Left as inept and economically clueless
    I see the Right as married to intellectually bankrupt ideologies.

    And then there are those who claim to be “non-ideological” and “data-driven,” who in reality are ideologically-driven and don’t realize it.

    For example, what “data” are most important to the “data-driven” and by what criteria is that determination made? Who choses those criteria and why?
    How do you define “inept and economically clueless” and how do you decide which ideologies are “intellectually bankrupt”? By what criteria do you make these determinations? Who choses those criteria and why?

    When you answer the “and why” part of the questions above and trace your answers back to their intellectual roots, you will find lurking in there somewhere an ideological basis (and bias).

    Everyone is inherently ideological, whether they like it or not. It’s not a crime. It’s part of the human condition and human way of thinking. Ideology helps people deal with the onslaught of information from the world by giving them a shorthand way to tell what is impoertant from what is not.

    For example, I consider myself libertarian, having read Hayek and other libertarian thinkers extensively and finding myself in agreement with them about human nature and their world view. It’s better to admit it, be open about it, understand why you believe what you believe, and be prepared to defend your beliefs when necessary.

  40. louis says:

    “It is a very important objection to this government, that the representation consists of so few; too few to resist the influence of corruption, and the temptation to treachery, against which all governments ought to take precautions” – Cato

  41. vlumpt says:

    As a reformed libertarian, I found this really funny.

    There is a philosophy that is basically libertarian without the wackiness – it is called Classical Liberalism. The definitive statement on where and how to draw the line between public and private was written by Richard Epstein (Professor of Law at U. of Chicago) and is called “Principles for a Free Society: Reconciling Individual Liberty with the Common Good. ” This is the same Epstein that writes “The Libertarian” column for Forbes.

  42. EAR says:

    HEHEHE…

    “I’ve studied the classics, I’ve my business degree and JD…” As I said, the era of Self Aggrandizement. Congratulations.

    I could give a crap about your personal feats and it seems they haven’t provided you with the ability to read in sequence. My first paragraph was in reference to the cartoon. My third, was in reference to your comment about what you “commend” Libertarians for.

    Now, if you read it correctly, you’ll understand why I think your “commending” of one group for discussing issues that people from all walks of life do all the time is nonsense.

    I don’t think anything is “beyond the scope of correcting” but I think people who say that the answers to problems lie with another ideological approach, another -ism, are full of it. If you got the chance, the only thing you’d “figure out” is how to tip the scales in favor of your gang and botch whatever balance you meant to bring. Why? Because you have been granted the power to do so. That’s how it has always been. If you think you and your gang can transcend the trend, you’re delusional.

    I also don’t think “Hey, they figured out the drug thing here. Why not in the US?” when I’m in Amsterdam. “Legalization of drugs has occured many places.” That’s adolescent stuff.

    I understand that solutions to problems aren’t readily available and that embracing an ideology won’t make them more so. The fact that there are so many who think their degree or job or station or lineage or dogma moves them ahead in the line to enlightenment is what makes “correcting” the big problems more complicated.

  43. Daffyorbugs says:

    Define “define”.

  44. jpitt42 says:

    I agree that following pragmatism and data-driven decision making is proper. Unfortunately, there is the underlying implication that there is a person or group of people with the legitimate authority to enforce these decisions and compel the dissenters to go along. If one person doesn’t have the right to compel people to go along (monarchy), then a group doesn’t either (democracy).

    This is what makes me a libertarian (I hate labels). I don’t have the answer to where this leaves us, or what the perfect solution is, but I’m not going to pretend that the status quo is acceptable. Perhaps if people could understand that the whole premise of the existing system is flawed, but we’re not sure what else to do, they wouldn’t put so much blind faith in it, and our demagogue politicians wouldn’t have so much influence.

  45. Thor says:

    AndyT -

    “But, what’s notable is that lack of Libertarians who even give a crap about BR’s comment-baiting hit jobs anymore.”

    BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA – tell us another story Andy – that was great, thank you!

  46. Dervin says:

    Well, if we look at the general pillars of libertarianism
    1) No restrictions on inheritance of property.
    2) No restrictions on contracts between two individuals.

    We will eventually end up in a feudalism.

  47. Dennis says:

    Wow, some of these people take a funny comic WAY TOO SERIOUSLY

    Get over yourselves people — if you cannot see any humor here, you are very likely one of the 24!

  48. Daffyorbugs says:

    She define!

  49. jpitt42 says:

    Oh yeah, and I found the comic pretty hilarious. I read this blog and many others that don’t quite share my world-view, because at least there’s some thought behind it. I think I like the left and right leaning data-heads much more than many of the “libertarian” ones.

  50. MinnItMan says:

    “libertarians have done a horrible job of selling themselves”

    Thats what you do when your political philosophy is anti-political. That’s a problem they can’t fix, until they admit that “politics” itsef is legitimate.

  51. flipspiceland says:

    @Thor

    “In matters of opinion, debate is pointless.”

  52. Jonathan says:

    I resemble that remark!

    I would fall more under Caveat Emptor than any other category if I were to assign a label.

    I am not for NO Federal government, but I am certainly for much smaller Federal government than what we have, as well as I only feel the Federal government should have the powers assigned to them in the constitution.

    According to Amendment X, any power not given to the Federal government via the constitution defaults to the state or the people. In order for the Federal government to assume any new power, an additional amendment is required to grant that power.

    And yes, I do believe that at least 90% of what the Federal government does on a daily basis is unconstitutional.

  53. fromthedeepersouth says:

    MinnItMan, no, libertarianism puts politics at the local level, instead of having “Daddy” tell you what you need to do.

  54. Stephen says:

    A lot of these were pretty funny. But here’s the problem for you Barry: the only reason these stereotypes are popular is not so that the Libertarian can identify him/herself with a word, but so that detractors can label them and promote prejudice. You announce all the time here that you are not a ‘lefty’, a ‘righty’, a ‘democrat’ , ‘libertarian’, ‘republican’, etc. God knows what you are (and that is probably the case with most of the political and social spectra). So, when you stereotype Libertarians you better be prepared to not complain when you are likewise stereotyped as a liberal big-government socialist maxist – good grief, I don’t know what you are! I do know that you are more in line with state-ism than with liberty (liberty would be our constitution and our founding fathers. Remember the ‘*liberty* bell?’).

  55. flipspiceland says:

    @MinnItMan

    Define, “politics”.

  56. Thor says:

    flipspiceland – yes I know, I’m sorry. Couldn’t resist.

  57. cannuck says:

    @BR – you and Mish should debate – you’re both clearly popular, have both made great market calls and are generally respected – but you come from different angles – as a pragmatist you can’t argue with his success and track record on calling things both in politics and the market. Despite being much less sexy from a media standpoint he’s called the major issues well before others.

    Awesome post – I consider myself libertarian and that graphic does an excellent job of segmenting the various extreme views – but there are many pragmatists that prescribe to libertarian views.

    And now for a market call, which I pop up once in a while to make. My previous call was selling BP puts @ 18 for Dec with a $2 premium, today it was sell spy dec @ 90 for 5.5 premium. These are nibbles and shot not constitute advice, when you’ve avoided the recent dip – if you call 16% a dip, its okay to nibble when everyone else is scared.

  58. bucktownbob says:

    Ideologies of the twentieth century are nineteenth-century social dreams gone wrong, re-structured into practical systems to deny the individual. They have been exposed as euphemisms hiding terrifying crimes- the purging of millions of lives in the name of common goals – lowest common denominators masquerading as brave new worlds, the last refuge of utopian sleaze.
    – Ralph Steadman

  59. Mannwich says:

    Obviously enough of ‘em still give a crap to keep coming back here and commenting, and in the very least, lurking. ;-)

  60. fromthedeepersouth says:

    Dervin, I don’t think so. We’re feudalistic now and becoming more so with extraction of wealth by the top 1%. If societ was driven from below and the wealthy went too far, the people would form unions and force the power back. Look at the late 1800s to early 1900s. Starting with the coal miners to improve their working conditions, unions formed to pull wealth back from the wealthy. Right now, the wealthy own our government. Only giving people power will wealth be distributed more evenly

  61. The Curmudgeon says:

    BR: Non-ideological, focusing on facts and solutions that work best? I’d say that’s pretty close to radical objectivity, which describes the 17th century heretic Jew Baruch Spinoza’s philosophy. (He was kicked out of his Jewish community in Amsterdam probably for his view of a pantheistic God, or perhaps because he correctly observed that Moses could not have written the Torah).

    A key construct of his metaphysics was the idea that reason can free us from the bondage of our emotions.

    I’d say, Mr. Ritholtz, you are a Spinozist. Which, from my point of view, is a compliment of the highest order.

    Incidentally, what little Spinoza wrote about politics favored a strong state, because only through a strong state can there be freedom from fear, and without freedom from fear, no other freedom matters. His political views were forged in the crucible of the Thirty Years War, so that may have colored his perspective.

  62. I’ll take that as a deep compliment . . .

  63. Thor says:

    Yes – Curmudgeon that was a very nice compliment indeed!

  64. Jonathan says:

    @The Curmudgeon

    I understand that you may not be agreeing with Spinoza, you are merely stating what he believed.

    I find it interesting that he would believe that only through a strong state can there be freedom from fear, if by a strong state he means a large government.

    I believe that a government that gets too large (strong, if you will) it does not give you freedom from fear, it CREATES fear in the form of fear of oppression.

  65. Ny Stock Guy says:

    I believe that we have far more to fear from giant corporations than almost any U.S. government.

  66. Paul B says:

    Very funny! All true. Can a person want more liberties and not gain the title though? Does pointing out the opposite extreme to what we have (ie – a two tiered society: 1)highly managed surreptitious collectivism and 2) the class that manages it) make one a Libertarian? Can a revolutionary really belong to a party?

  67. jfberge says:

    @Barry Ritholz

    “I am not a fan of any of the “ISMs” nor do I find any one ideology (or political party) reflects my belief system”

    My sentiments exactly. It’s hard to find time to understand abstract and conflicting issues, and stressful to counter criticism. ISMs take care of this for you, freeing you to spout the company line and take comfort in the large number of people “on your side.” It’s about belonging. This political mindset seems to result in an insular, static stance, as it puts “right” before reason.

  68. Is there anyone that seriously believes we should have no federal or national government? How infeasible of an idea is that? You would be immediately the neighboring country*

    ~~~

    *even if you were not adjacent to Germany

  69. SteveC says:

    My brother married a libertarian; that is until she lost her job, and she was immediately in line at the unemployment office, and in contact with her attorney to see if she can sue her former employer for damages, while exercising her Cobra for continued health insurance. That pretty much sums up most so called “libertarians” I know; people who hate the “govm’t” when its time to pay taxes, but more than willing to stick their hand out when they need a hand from Uncle Sam.

  70. heheh says:

    Steve C

    Our neighbors are the same — Ron Paul signs on the lawn, every neighborhood get together whining about teachers and unions — but once they could sign up for free government health care, they were right there.

  71. Andy T says:

    I’ve been to a few Libertarian meetings and there are definitely some whack jobs in those circles. So, they can be a funny group for sure and easily mocked. Some of the ideas are kooky for sure in the sense that they’re non-pragmatic.

    It just seems like BR likes to put up an inordinate number of articles meant to incite “comments” from the Libertarian crowd.

    It’s somewhat revealing but all good. Whatever works for page hits I guess.

    Hey Thor. How’s everything going out there? Hope things are going well with you.

  72. I don’t care about page hits — rather, I prefer hi-quality demographic readers. I simply found the cartoon — sent from a friend college (now gay and in DC) that I simply had not see before . . .

  73. Andy T says:

    @SteveC,

    That’s the insidious nature of they systems and architecture we’ve created. Once we’ve forced people to pay out taxes, there attitude is “why not use the services?” Socialized “creep.”

  74. IS_LM says:

    I view the Left as inept and economically clueless

    I see the Right as married to intellectually bankrupt ideologies.

    Not sure where that leaves me, but it ain’t a Democrat or a Republican, and the Liberal/Conservative schism is insufficiently nuanced to properly identify my views.

    Arthur Burns and his student, Alan Greenspan, were both Republican Fed Chairman. Burns earned a PhD in economics; Greenspan was issued a PhD at NYU. Both created economic maelstroms (stagflation and real estate bubble). Both were on “the Right.” Economically clueless or intellectually bankrupt? Both? I don’t think it matters much.

  75. GerhardWMagnus says:

    Libertarians are just Republicans who smoke dope, whine about their taxes, and have extremely principled and complicated reasons for sucking up to the rich. If they ever did do a John Galt no one would notice. And I suspect many are still pissed off about not being able to take the home office deduction for that computer in the basement.

  76. Andy T says:

    “I don’t care about page hits — rather, I prefer hi-quality demographic readers.”

    I guess Libertarians WOULD be a higher quality demographic you would want to “draw in.” I understand it now….

  77. jpitt42 says:

    @hehheh & SteveC

    “Our neighbors are the same — Ron Paul signs on the lawn, every neighborhood get together whining about teachers and unions — but once they could sign up for free government health care, they were right there.”

    For sure there are the hypocrites out there who whine about these things, but then actively agitate for the government to give them something, but some of your examples ring pretty hollow. I’m sure BR would agree that government involvement in a marketplace has a crowding out effect (schools, health-care, etc). If the government option is the only game in town for a service that one needs, then I don’t see a moral problem with using it. I suppose this is what sets me apart from the Amish.

  78. Mike Peino says:

    The problem with this cartoon is that its not accurate. For it to be funny, it has to have some truth. This cartoon does not. Its just a bunch of caricatures of what leftists think of libertarians. I’m a libertarian, closer to an anarchist really, and I have no problem making fun of myself. Sure, we can be preachy, boring sometimes, wrapped up in philosophical concepts, we can ruin dinner parties by talking about the latest government intrusion when no else wants to discuss it. Make fun of us for that, no problem. I will laugh with you.

    But when its just a bunch of insulting, inaccurate and bad faith caricatures put out by some economically and morally bankrupt leftist then I am not going to laugh along and pretend its “all in good fun”. That would be like putting up a minstrel cartoon of a black person or a WWII era poster of a Japanese person and then asking them to laugh along because its all in good fun and we all need to make fun of ourselves.

    Sorry, not gonna do it.

    ~~~

    BR: #25: Whiney

  79. Mike Peino says:

    If the government has used violence to monopolize a particular product or service, how can you claim a libertarian is a hypocrite for using it, just because they are against the government monopolizing it?

    In New York, the government monopolizes trash pick up services. Am I supposed to sit in a pile of trash because ideologically I support the privatization and opening up of the market for this service? Thats ridiculous. In order to be a hypocrite you have to have some sort of choice. When it comes to government services you are violently forced to pay for them whether you want them or not. You can hardly claim someone is a hypocrite for using something that the government exerts a violent monopoly over and that they are forced to pay for with threats of violence.

  80. jpitt42 says:

    “Is there anyone that seriously believes we should have no federal or national government? How infeasible of an idea is that? You would be immediately the neighboring country*”

    I believe that, but it’s basically a moral objection to being born into a social contract I never consented to. Maybe that’s just the human condition, but I find it unjust. There are all kinds of things that can replace it, but who knows if it would be better or worse, or even last. You can only speculate and hypothesize. Plus, I don’t think history looks very kindly on libertarian societies being neighbors of nation-states (last time I checked, Scotland is now part of the UK). Maybe humans as a group are too stupid to coexist without directives from superiors.

    This won’t ever be done by purposeful action of a political lobby, which is why I don’t waste my time with national politics. Too many people have a vested interest in the current system, and wouldn’t have a clue how to act (probably myself included). I’d expect the Feds to bankrupt themselves at some point in the future due to all of the rent-seekers the centralization of power attracts. I’m sure it will be interesting to see what takes its place. Perhaps we will get feudalism, but who said that has to be a bad thing? Maybe it just gets a bad rap. :)

  81. jus7tme says:

    F-ing brilliant, this cartoon.

  82. bergsten says:

    I saw the usual “you’re just doing this for more page hits” comment, and realized that’s not it at all.

    It’s a way of determining which commenters are under 25, as nobody older than that would be bothered getting embroiled in an argument (or even a discussion) of political philosophies.

  83. Bokolis says:

    Online gambling, then, has a far lower blow-up rate than a brokerage house letting its customers play in the currency markets.

    I spend enough time on the roads that, as the Balladeer said, someday, the mountain might git me. I just hope I have no recollection in whatever holding pen awaits. In any case, nobody’s getting my organs.

  84. call me ahab says:

    they could sign up for free government health care

    I know it’s awesome- it’s ALL FREE- because it’s paid for by taxes-

    that always gets a chuckle out of me

  85. Andy T says:

    @bergsten.

    Some truth to that I s’pose. But, hey it’s America. It’s nice to be able to enjoy the freedoms of speech/press while they’re still free. It’s sort of fun to get into ideological debates once in awhile.

    BR has revealed himself to be more left-leaning in his views, especially in regard to government regulations over business and the economy. Additionally, he’s a GSE apologist, suggesting several times that “they’re just like all the other lousy banks,” when in fact they were much different. Those are probably the two main concepts BR and I would get into a lot of argument over. Other than that, I think we in general agreement on lots of things.

    In terms of Libertarian shots, I guess I just don’t remember the last time BR posted cartoon caricatures about East Coast Liberals, or Religious Right Conservatives or the California wingnuts who want to mandate what type of TV you can purchase. (Perhaps he does and that’s just some sort of “cognitive bias” coming through on my part!)

    For a guy who claims to believe in all the ‘best’ parts of the various “Isms” and rejects ‘dogmatic’ Liberals, conservatives, etc, it would just be nice to see some “equal opportunity” pot-shots. Isn’t that American way? heh heh.

    All that said, keep posting the content from “leftycartoons.com” They’ll do wonders for readership for a while….

    Peace.

  86. Idea2Result says:

    Love it! lol

    Simple, point-blank, witty. I hope to read more

  87. MinnItMan says:

    “libertarianism puts politics at the local level, instead of having “Daddy” tell you what you need to do.”

    Plenty of libertairians want the Federal 14th Amendment to block local governments’ ability to legislate. That is to say, the libertarian right (and left) generally thinks too few state laws and local ordinances are struck down by the US Supreme Court – that it is not activist enough. Also, the Green Party is far more successful locally than anything having to do with libertarians.

    Rather than define “politics,” I would say that the definition, at the very least, includes persuasion. Which leads to the question: why do so few people express themselves (as interpreted through voting results) as libertarians? There are a lot of answers to this, but one of them is certainly that libertarians may not be very persuasive about their vision of justice. Or not very persuasive that they’re serious about their commitment to neutrality if elected. Or that they have any interest, whatsoever, in defining the public good. Or more concretely, why has no libertarian ever gotten at least the kind of protest support that Ross Perot (nut that HE is) got?

    My $.02 is that the cartoon is largely true. I’ve heard all 32 panels proclaimed (although I mostly proclaim #32, myself). Again, I am a libertarian sympathizer. About 15 years ago, when I was at the height of my being active in the Republican Party, it was evident that the future there belonged to the theocrats – christian reconstructionists (really nuts), Catholic Legionnaires of Christ (who appear to have a thing for free-markety Maxim cover-boy priests), Family Research Council, Focus on the Family and American Family Association scolds (who appear to like meth more than I do, but also feel really guilty about it in ways that I don’t), etc. If you want to talk about getting lectured “to the pain,” (see the “Princess Bride”) get these folks started on the separation of church and state. OMG, can’t we legalize oxycontin already?

    Conclusion number one for me was never to make too much of a common cause with suspected theocrats, however minor. (Statement intentionally opaque).

    Conclusion number two was compromise is essential to being effective in politics. I’m just not a “purity of essence” guy – that’s at least one way of “madness” I can choose not.

    I voted for President Obama. I didn’t expect much, but I have actually been disappointed. He appears to be doubling-down in Afghanistan (my antiwar.com miltary friends say he’s worse than Bush). And he’s (his wannabe “people” are) marginalizing critics in the lower rungs of command. Banking reform is pretty much a fart in the wind. Health care? – we’ll see if that amounts to much (if there are still 40 million uninsured in 2015, I’m not going to be shocked). Immigration? He doesn’t need the birthers to agree with him, but he does need the help of a lot of heterogeneous ideologically-identified groups to get much done. If I thought Republicans had anything to offer on anything, I might not be inclined to give the President some slack. Cliche warning: how can we need a third party, when we have no second?

  88. Jonathan says:

    Score one for having the best comments on any blog out there Barry. Any other blog and this would have already turned into an all-out flame war.

    I have read every comment on this post and I am happy to see that even though there are some sharp disagreements in opinion, for the most part the debating is very civil.

    This is not sarcasm, I am actually very proud to see there are still clear-thinking people in this world that can write a rebuttal on something they disagree with.

  89. d4winds says:

    good cartoon but it misses one of the more important aspects about many who call themselves libertarian: they rarely, if ever, rail against the use of public power to extend and preserve private economic power and never rail against the latter (which would be “lefty”).

  90. dsawy says:

    One of the funnier things one finds if one hangs out around enough people calling themselves “libertarian” is how one “wing” of the libertarian movement scares another wing.

    For example, the doper libertarians are scared by the gun-owning libertarians, and the academic libertarians are scared by the capitalist-hero libertarians. The reason why they’re all grouped together, even by themselves, is more people are beginning to see that rooting for one narrow special liberty doesn’t work. The War on Drugs has effectively destroyed the Fourth Amendment, which has implications far beyond arrests of just dopers, for example.

    On a serious note, there are a lot of people calling themselves “libertarian” who are anything but, which leads to personality groupings such as seen in the cartoon above. Many of these people are seeking a “third way” party. The problem in US politics today is that everyone running is really looking to twist the knobs on the controls of government to enrich themselves or their buddies. We have two sides of the same coin: heads they win, tails we lose.

  91. Crazy_Redneck says:

    Wow. 24 types of libertarian? Mildly funny, I’ll give you that.

    There is only one type of liberal. Come to think of it, there’s only one type of conservative….

    …Dead f*&king wrong…

  92. dsawy,

    you know, when: “The problem in US politics today is that everyone running is really looking to twist the knobs on the controls of government to enrich themselves or their buddies.”, is the case, ipso facto, “Gov’t is too Big.”

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ipso+facto
    ~~

    Ahab,

    from this Quarter, certainly, feel free to play this: “they could sign up for free government health care

    I know it’s awesome- it’s ALL FREE- because it’s paid for by taxes-”

    on a continuous loop..it’s beautiful, in its, very, (Logical)Ugliness–that makes Good Satire, no?

  93. impermanence says:

    I always thought that being a Libertarian was the ultimate, ‘have your cake and eat it too,’ political philosophy. Great for those intellectuals that desire all the benefits of the private and public sectors, without any of the guilt.

  94. Bruman says:

    True Awesomeness!

  95. VennData says:

    “…I too am against helmet laws, but that’s only because I am in favor of organ transplants …”

    This is typical of the health care mania in this country. If everyone would just donate one organ now, none of these “negotiations” with drug companies would even be necessary.

    Why aren’t these people in the West Coast of Florida Libertarians any more?

    And why can’t I have sex with coal miners? or whatever?

    Why can’t I vote for that guy? Term limits? Freedom killer!

    My neighbor wants to restrict my freedom, and I don’t want him to! Stop him!

  96. Tom K says:

    @Barry Ritholtz

    “I favor gun ownership, but also believe Cities have the right to legislate against hand gun usage.”

    Now that’s a quotable quote. Barry, you have job waiting for you in D.C.

    ~~~

    BR: I am not an absolutist. I also believe that people in a democracy should be able to vote new legislation.

    Wyoming is different than the South Bronx. Don’t you think there can and should be different laws that apply to each, according to the will of the local populace?

  97. zdog says:

    Somalia == Libertarian Utopia

    I hope they all just keep their knickers in a bunch commenting over at ZH.

  98. Jojo says:

    Good comic! Has there ever been a Libertarian state in the history of the world?

    BTW: If you go to the original link for the comic, you can get a text script.

  99. gman says:

    I work with a libertarian. He is always complaining about taxes.

    He cheers on every imaginable war.
    His grandfather is ill and been on life support and is recieving millions $ worth of treatment. My colleague said he would “threaten to kill” (he is a gun rights guy) any doctor that suggested he grandfathers treatment be curtailed.

    80% of federal spending is defence, interest on the debt and elderly spending!
    COGNITIVE DISSONANCE!
    Most “libertarians” would/could NOT STOMACH CUTTING WHAT GOVERNMENT ACTUALLY SPENDS MONEY ON!