My recent column, A Long, Hot Summer, which wasn’t so much a defense of Donald Trump as it was a celebration of the salutary effect Trump’s candidacy is having on the irremediably corrupt GOP establishment, brought forth some defenders of (of all things) Ted Cruz.

Now that the other frontman for the irremediably corrupt GOP establishment has been Trumped, all hope is pinned on the former Bush Machine operator, who is – with an effrontery that would startle Borat – touted as an “outsider” who will rescue “our freedoms” from the grasping talons of the dread Hildebeast.

One such defender of Cruz questions the “Libertarian” (his air quotes) credentials of those who dare to criticize Cruz.

I thought perhaps it might be of interest to print – and then dissect – his missives.

Here goes:

Goodness, I am so glad to be assaulted on three or four sides by righteous “libertarians!” If one cannot figure out that a comment about a two inch penis is a “micro-aggression” than I guess it would be hard to explain just about any thing else in the world. As Mick Jagger once said “Fuck ’em if they can’t take a joke”. The political process in this country is barely functional. I have hardly endorsed any political candidate over another except to say that a Dem victory in November will be a disaster for any of us who value liberty. If you think that now is the time for revolution in this country, I empathize, but in the same breath dare you to proclaim it so. And while you are at it make sure to publish the names of yourself and all of those who will rise up with you to overthrow the Government. Truth or dare baby. And just to make it interesting, I knew Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard. You folks have no idea. Sayonara, I am becoming quite bored with this discourse. Besides, I trust my motor vehicles are quite a bit more interesting than what you drive anyway.

My response:

I agree that a Democrat victory would be a disaster.

And so will a Republican victory.

There is not an iota of meaningful difference – from a Libertarian point-of-view – between the two (to use your format) “parties”… because in fact there is only one party with two wings.

It is the party of the authoritarian, collectivist state.

You are allowed to choose between a “wing” of the party that emphasizes warfare and a “wing” that emphasizes welfare – though both will give us plenty of the other, too.

The political process in this country is quite functional… if the object of the exercise is to enshrine and maintain the power (political and economic) of a relatively tiny cabal of interchangeable elites.

It is entirely non-functional if the object is to protect the right of the individual to be left in peace so long as he himself is peaceful toward others.

Will the election of Ted Cruz mean I and other peaceful Americans who’ve committed no crime and have given no reason to suspect us of having committed one will be able to fly without a crotch-groping? Will random, probable cause-free stop and searches on our roads be ended? Will I no longer be presumed guilty until I prove myself innocent? Will I no longer be forced to send money to the health insurance mafia?

How about the other mafias?

Will “the troops” be called home and disbanded to civilian life? Will the government cease making “war” on individuals who choose to put certain substances into their bodies and cause no harm (as such) to any other person by so doing?

Will the practice of monitoring and recording the private communications of individuals en masse, not even suspected of having committed any kind of crime, be discontinued? Will the federal government repudiate the use of physical torture/arrest/indefinite “detainment” without charge (let alone conviction) as policy? Arrest and prosecute those government officials who enacted and enforced such policies?

Will the creepy talk of a “Homeland” be ended, at last?

Please (as Clover styles it) tell me…

Rand, incidentally, was something of a loon. If you knew her, you know this. While advocating in her work for the individual, she derided individuals in her circle of intimates who did not conform to her whims, even to the extent of their personal preferences regarding music and other art.

She admired the Apollo program, without mentioning (much less criticizing) the source of its funding (extorted funds) and failed to defend the non-aggression principle as a moral absolute, which is arguably her greatest failing as a philosopher.

On revolution: I dread what is coming, chiefly because I see the country as dominated by authoritarian collectivists of one species or another rather than people who have embraced the philosophy of non-aggression and voluntary, peaceful interaction. But even though I dread this, I do not fora moment believe that a Cruz victory is somehow going to hold the line. Not only because Cruz is himself an authoritarian collectivist (do you seriously deny this?) but because it is too late.

A people, a nation, cross a Rubicon at some point and become irremediable. Once this happens there is nothing to be done but ride it out. It cannot be undone or dialed back anymore than you can change the fact of old age.

I do not relish chaos or violence. I am appalled by the prospect of either. But perhaps it is better to let the sickness pass… and start over, with a healthy organism.

And I fully understand that the disintegration of this country’s unitary/centralized system very well could entail even worse violence/oppression than we’re dealing with now. However, it could also mean real liberty for break-away regions. Perhaps not the ideal Libertarian society (as distinct from state) but certainly a vast improvement over the central/unitary state.

Expecting the GOP to advocate for real liberty is akin to Charlie Brown expecting Lucy to not pull away the football at the last second this time.

And looking to a cretin such as Ted Cruz (for god’s sake) for a renewal of real liberty is downright pathetic.

Get what you and your family need with today’s top-selling products now!

Related Articles